FERC broadly denied rehearing of its previously adopted order setting forth rules governing the participation of storage resources in organized markets.

FERC's rule required each jurisdictional RTO to revise its tariff to establish a participation model for electric storage resources that consist of market rules that properly recognize the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources.

The rule required that the sale of electric energy from the wholesale electricity market to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to those markets must be at the wholesale locational marginal price.

FERC affirmed such finding on rehearing

FERC again broadly asserted jurisdiction over storage, even where not interconnected to the transmission system.

FERC did grant certain limited clarifications

On jurisdictional issues, FERC said, "To further eliminate the potential for confusion on this point, we clarify that, in declining requests to allow states to decide whether electric storage resources in their state that are located behind a retail meter or on the distribution system are permitted to 'participate' in the RTO/ISO markets through the electric storage resource participation model, the Commission was referring to the ability of electric storage resources to sell into the RTO/ISO markets. Given this clarification, we also dismiss as moot the argument that there is inconsistency between the Commission’s finding that an RTO/ISO is prevented from charging a resource wholesale rates if the host distribution utility is unable or unwilling to net out wholesale energy purchases and the Commission’s decision to decline to adopt an opt-out."

In clarifying another issue, FERC said, "In their rehearing request, AES Companies argue that Order No. 841 requires a resource seeking to participate in RTO/ISO markets under the electric storage resource participation model to be available to the RTO/ISO as a dispatchable resource. We disagree with this characterization of Order No. 841’s requirements and thus, deny AES Companies’ request for rehearing. However, we find it is necessary to modify § 35.28(g)(9)(i)(B) of the Commission’s regulations to clarify that, to the extent electric storage resources are dispatchable, the RTO/ISO is required to allow them to participate as dispatchable resources and to set the clearing price in the RTO/ISO markets as part of the participation model. We clarify that not all electric storage resources that seek to use the electric storage resource participation model need to be dispatchable to use that participation model."

See FERC's order for more

Docket Nos. RM16-23-001; AD16-20-001; Order No. 841-A

Tags:
FERC   Storage  

Comment on this story


ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com
TPV-SALES-EXECUTIVE -- Back Office Provider -- Other
Sr-Market-Risk-Analyst -- Wholesale Supplier/Trader -- New York - New York City Metro
Head-of-Retail-Operations -- Wholesale Supplier/Trader -- Other
Energy-Regulatory-Specialist -- Other -- Other
More Stories on RetailEnergyX.com:
FERC Orders $230 Million In Penalties Against GreenHat, Related Parties '
Retail Supplier Expands Program To Offer Power To Tesla Battery Customers '
FERC Issues Show Cause Order To GreenHat With Proposed $229 Million Fine For Alleged 'Manipulation'
ENGIE EPS Selected For 10MWh Energy Storage System
FERC Rules That Entering Bilateral FTR Data Into PJM System Does Not Create A Separate Contract