Why power plants should pay for grid upgrades.
Do we make all generators equal-using affirmative action to give rights to merchants that are "comparable" to utility-owned plants?
Or, do we let the locational price signals shine through-trusting all plant developers, whether regulated or not, to act in self-interest?
How rules muted price signals and did not ensure efficient siting.
Of the new rules proposed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for interconnecting new power plants to the transmission grid, the most controversial (for transmission providers and generators alike) is FERC's choice of who should pay to construct the various categories of required new facilities.
RTO cost/benefit studies are difficult to reconcile.
The premise behind the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) push for regional transmission organizations (RTOs)-that they will provide positive economic benefits to society- increasingly is being challenged.
And where the trouble spots lie in FERC's grid plan.
The mood appeared calm on June 26 in Washington, D.C., at the regular bi-weekly meeting of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Key officials from various regional transmission organizations (RTOs) had gathered before chairman Pat Wood and the other commissioners to brief them on progress over the past year in reforming wholesale electric markets, and on what the FERC might expect in the summer at hand.
The smart money now treats transmission as a player. Just like generation. Just like load.
On the virtues and vices of ICAP, ACAP, FTRs, hubs, flowgates, DAMs, and gaming.
What can we learn from its failure?