Document Search
Site Search
Advanced Search
Updates & Alerts
News & Media
Upcoming Meetings
Deregulation Library
Member Services
Ambit Energy
American Power & Gas
APPI Energy
Blue Rock Energy
BP Energy
Clearview Energy
Colonial Group Inc
Columbia Utilities
Crius Energy
Customzed Energy Solutions
Direct Energy
EC Infosystems
Energy Mark
Feller Energy Law
First Energy
Fluentgrid Ltd
Great American Power
IDT Energy
Infinite Energy
Integrys Energy Services
Shell Energy
Liberty Power Corp
LCH Clearnet
National Fuel Resources, Inc
Nodal Exchange
Noco Energy
North American Power
Palmco Energy
Planet Energy
Progress Energy
Public Power
RRH Energy Services LLC
Summitt Energy
Shell Energy
Spark Energy
Sperian Energy
Star Energy
Stream Energy
Suburban energy
Verde Energy USA
Washington Gas Energy Services Inc.
Xoom Energy
February 23, 2018
NEM Upcoming Events

NEM’s 21st Annual National Restructuring Conference will be held April 30 – May 2, 2018, at the Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill Hotel, Washington, DC. An agenda is forthcoming. You may register at this hotlink.

Order on Electric Storage Participation in RTOs/ISOs and Technical Conference on DER

FERC adopted a final rule on the participation of electric storage resources, which it defined as "a resource capable of receiving electric energy from the grid and storing it for later injection of electric energy back to the grid," in RTO/ISO markets. The rule was premised on a Commission finding that current RTO/ISO market rules are unjust and unreasonable because of barriers to participation of these resources, resulting in the reduction of competition and unjust and unreasonable rates. As a result, each RTO/ISO must establish market rules that facilitate the participation of electric storage resources, recognizing their unique physical and operational characteristics.

Each RTO/ISO must file tariff provisions that: "(1) ensure that a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources is eligible to provide all capacity, energy, and ancillary services that it is technically capable of providing in the RTO/ISO markets; (2) ensure that a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources can be dispatched and can set the wholesale market clearing price as both a wholesale seller and wholesale buyer consistent with existing market rules that govern when a resource can set the wholesale price; (3) account for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources through bidding parameters or other means; and (4) establish a minimum size requirement for participation in the RTO/ISO markets that does not exceed 100kW. Additionally, each RTO/ISO must specify that the sale of electric energy from the RTO/ISO markets to an electric storage resource that the resource then sells back to those markets must be at the wholesale locational marginal price (LMP)."

Each RTO/ISO must file the associated tariff changes within 270 days of the final rule's publication in the Federal Register. The RTOs/ISOs then have 365 days from that date to implement the tariffs. The full text of the Order is available on the NEM Website.

Although FERC had included the issue of distributed energy resource (DER) aggregations in RTO/ISO markets in its initial rule proposal, it found that additional information would be required before taking final action. Therefore, a technical conference was scheduled for April 10 and 11, 2018, at FERC's Washington, DC headquarters to gather additional information pertaining to what action to take on DER aggregation reforms and to explore issues related to the potential effects of DERs on the bulk power system. The full texts of the Notice of Technical Conference and Staff Report are available on the NEM Website.

Click here to view all past updates.
Commission Opens Supplier Assessment Proceeding

As required by law, the Commission has initiated a proceeding to consider the collection of assessments from Alternative Retail Electric Suppliers and Alternative Gas Suppliers, in addition to electric and gas utilities.

The law specifically provides that "the Commission shall initiate a docketed proceeding in which it shall consider, in addition to assessments from electric and gas utilities subject to this subsection, the raising of assessments from, or the payment of fees by, water and sewer utilities, entities possessing certificates of service authority as alternative retail electric suppliers under Section 16-115 of this Act, entities possessing certificates of service authority as alternative gas suppliers under Section 19-110 of this Act, and telecommunications carriers providing local exchange telecommunications service or interexchange telecommunications service under Sections 13-204 or 13-205 of this Act. The amounts so determined shall be based on the costs to the agency of the exercise of its regulatory and supervisory functions with regard to the different industries and service providers subject to the proceeding. No less often than every 3 years after the end of a proceeding under this subsection (i-5), the Commission shall initiate another proceeding for that purpose."

A procedural schedule for the proceeding has not yet been established. The full texts of the Order and Staff Report are available on the NEM Website.

Click here to view all past updates.
Hearing on Supplier Consolidated Billing

The Commission held a legislative-style hearing this week to consider the petition of certain suppliers for the implementation of a supplier consolidated billing (SCB) option for electric and natural gas consumers in Maryland. Participating in the hearing were numerous individual competitive suppliers and supplier trade groups, including NEM, the utilities, OPC, Maryland Energy Administration and Commission Staff.

The competitive supplier community explained the benefits to consumers to be realized from a supplier consolidated billing. This includes responsiveness to consumer preferences for a single bill as well as the ability for the supplier to establish a direct relationship with the customer. SCB allows the supplier to communicate with the customer through the bill in the form of bill messages, product information, usage information and consumer education. It also allows suppliers to offer innovative products and services that cannot be accommodated under utility consolidated billing. Moreover, SCB results in decreased utility collections and decreased utility billing systems. SCB would also leverage ratepayer investments in advanced metering infrastructure that have been made in Maryland.

The Commissioners were concerned that SCB may impact consumer protections and supplier oversight. It was noted that suppliers have been offering SCB in Texas and Georgia and meeting all relevant legal and regulatory consumer protection requirements in those jurisdictions. Commissioners were interested in whether and how SCB could spur economic development in Maryland. Commissioners questioned the treatment of partial payments under SCB and how it effects termination for nonpayment. Commissioners were also concerned about the application of an early termination fee to bundled products, beyond commodity.

Utilities maintained that it is important for them to maintain a direct relationship with customers too. They suggested dual billing would be a better option. One utility argued that the utility right to terminate is tied to its obligation to serve and that it would radically change the paradigm to provide otherwise. OPC echoed this argument.

Also discussed was the issue of cost recovery. Suppliers maintained that implementation of SCB was contemplated under the original choice law and as such the implementation costs should be recovered from all customers because it benefits all customers. Certain utilities estimated their implementation costs at approximately $4.5 million, plus on-going maintenance costs. Staff disputed the magnitude of that cost estimate.

The Commission asked about the advisability of a phased approach or "soft open" to SCB.

Commission Staff supported the availability of SCB and believed the time is ripe to develop the SCB model. However, Staff favored a working group process, rather than supplier requests for a Commission Order directing SCB implementation first with the working group to develop the details after that. Staff requested Commission guidance on whether suppliers should be permitted to terminate for nonpayment, saying it would be a large break from past practice. Staff argued that nonpaying customers should revert to standard offer service.

The Commission will hold the record open until March 7th for the submission of any additional filings.

New York
Click here to view all past updates.
Commission to Consider Change to ZEC Payment Remittance Methodology

The Commission directed Staff and NYSERDA to submit for its consideration a detailed implementation plan that would change the current manner in which LSEs remit zero emissions credit (ZEC) payments to NYSERDA based on a fixed ZEC obligation calculated based on each LSE's historic share of statewide load, to a new "pay as you go" model that would be based on each LSE's actual known load. Under this approach, "NYSERDA and Staff would annually calculate a fixed dollar per MWh rate that each LSE will use to determine their financial obligation based on the actual monthly load served, as opposed to an obligation to purchase a fixed number of ZECs from NYSERDA based on a dated assessment of an LSE's load share ratio. This process is intended to eliminate the need for the Commission to adjust LSE ZEC compliance obligations and reduce the dollar magnitude of the settlements between NYSERDA and the LSEs during the annual reconciliation process."

The decision was prompted by another ESCO petition requesting a reduction in its ZEC obligation due to a dramatic reduction in load served as compared to NYSERDA's computation based on historical load, from which the ZEC payments are derived. The Commission granted the ESCO's requested reduction in ZEC obligation based on its demonstrated substantial loss in load.

The Commission further cautioned that "in March 2018, LSEs will be notified by NYSERDA as to their April 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019, ZEC obligation. This obligation will be calculated in the same manner as the previous ZEC obligation. [ESCO A] and all other jurisdictional LSEs should note that these obligations must be paid in accordance with their executed ZEC agreements with NYSERDA. LSEs may not, on their own accord, and without explicit Commission authorization, reduce or eliminate monthly payments for any reason; this includes during the pendency of a petition seeking changes to a ZEC obligation."

The full text of the Order is available on the NEM Website.

* Member Login :

User ID: 



*****   Click Here to stop receiving NEM Regulatory Updates    *****

3333 K Street, N.W., Suite 110
Washington, D.C. 20007
Tel: (202) 333-3288     Fax: (202) 333-3266

© Copyright 2004 National Energy Marketers Association