Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T16:36:35.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Minimum Offer Price Rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

Todd S. Aagaard
Affiliation:
Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Andrew N. Kleit
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

When regional transmission organizations (RTOs) in the northeastern United States created their second-generation capacity markets in the mid-2000s, they included – at least partially at FERC’s urging – regulatory programs aimed at preventing some vertically integrated firms – “net buyers” – from intentionally suppressing market prices for financial gain. In adopting these programs, the RTOs took the unusual step of acting against not only prices that were too high due to monopoly, but also prices that were perceived to be too low. These regulatory moves were highly unusual in practice and lacked foundation in economic theory. In combination with other institutional features of capacity markets discussed in previous chapters, they exerted upward pressure on capacity prices. Over time, these Minimum Offer Price Rules (MOPRs) have proliferated, broadening their targets to price suppression more generally and expanding their scope to include most new capacity resources, as well as some existing resources. In the process, the regulation of capacity markets has strayed from the purpose of capacity markets, which was to provide adequate capacity at the lowest possible cost. MOPR expansion has justifiably triggered harsh criticism of FERC’s regulatory overreach.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

H References

Aagaard, T and Kleit, AN (2020) A road paved with good intentions?: FERC’s illegal war on state electricity subsidies. Electricity Journal, June, 15.Google Scholar
Calpine, Corp. et al. (2016) Calpine Corp. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Complaint, FERC Docket No. EL16-49 (March 21).Google Scholar
Coase, RH (1960) The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3, 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Electricity Consumers Resource Council (ELCON) (2020) Calpine Corp. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Request for rehearing of the Electricity Consumers Resource Council (ELCON), FERC Docket Nos. WL16-49 & EL18–178.Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2006a) Devon Power LLC, Order accepting proposed settlement agreement, 115 FERC ¶ 61,340 (June 16).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2006b) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order denying rehearing and approving settlement subject to conditions, 117 FERC ¶ 61,331 (December 22).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2008a) New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Order conditionally approving proposal, 122 FERC ¶ 61,211 (March 7).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2008b) New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Order on rehearing and further order on compliance tariff sheets, 124 FERC ¶ 61,301 (September 30).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2009) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order accepting tariff provisions in part, rejecting tariff provisions in part, accepting report, and requiring compliance filings, 126 FERC ¶ 61,275 (March 26).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2010) New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Order on clarification, rehearing and compliance filing, 131 FERC ¶ 61,170 (May 20).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2011a) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order accepting proposed tariff revisions, subject to conditions, and addressing related complaint, 135 FERC ¶ 61,022 (April 12).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2011b) ISO New England Inc., Order on paper hearing and order on rehearing, 135 FERC ¶ 61,029 (April 13).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2013a) ISO New England Inc., Order on compliance filing, 142 FERC ¶ 61,107 (February 12).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2013b) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2013c) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order conditionally accepting in part, and rejecting in part, proposed tariff provisions, subject to conditions, 143 FERC ¶ 61,090 (May 2).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2014a) New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Order accepting tariff filing subject to condition and denying waiver, 146 FERC ¶ 61,043 (January 28).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2014b) ISO New England Inc., Order accepting tariff revisions, 147 FERC ¶ 61,173 (May 30).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2015a) Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Order granting complaint in part, 150 FERC ¶ 61,139 (February 26).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2015b) New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Order on clarification, rehearing, and compliance filing, 150 FERC ¶ 61,208 (March 19).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2015c) New York Public Service Commission v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Order on complaint and directing compliance filing, 153 FERC ¶ 61,022 (October 9).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2016) ISO New England Inc., Order on remand, 155 FERC ¶ 61,023 (April 8).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2017a) New York State Public Service Commission v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Order granting complaint in part and denying in part, 158 FERC ¶ 61,137 (February 3).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2017b) ISO New England Inc., Order on rehearing, 158 FERC ¶ 61,138 (February 3).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2018a) ISO New England Inc., Order on tariff filing, 162 FERC ¶ 61,205 (March 9).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2018b) Calpine Corp. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order rejecting proposed tariff revisions, granting in part and denying in part complaint, and instituting proceeding under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 163 FERC ¶ 61,236 (June 29).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2019a) ISO New England Inc., Order accepting filing, 166 FERC 61,061 (January 29).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2019b) Calpine Corp. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order establishing just and reasonable rate, 169 FERC ¶ 61,239 (December 19).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2020a) New York State Public Service Commission v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Order denying complaint, 170 FERC ¶ 61,119 (February 20).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2020b) New York State Public Service Commission v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Order granting in part and denying in part rehearing and clarification and rejecting compliance filing as moot, 170 FERC ¶ 61,120 (February 20).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2020c) New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Order on compliance, 170 FERC ¶ 61,121 (February 20).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2020d) Calpine Corp. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order on rehearing and clarification, 171 FERC ¶ 61,035 (April 16).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2020e) New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Order rejecting tariff revisions, 172 FERC ¶ 61,206 (September 4).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2020f) Calpine Corp. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order on compliance, granting waiver request, addressing arguments raised on rehearing, and setting aside prior order, in part, 173 FERC ¶ 61,061 (October 15).Google Scholar
Glick, R (2018a) Dissenting statement, ISO New England Inc, Order on tariff filing, 162 FERC ¶ 61,205 (March 9).Google Scholar
Glick, R (2018b) Dissenting statement, Calpine Corp. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order rejecting proposed tariff revisions, granting in part and denying in part complaint, and instituting proceeding under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 163 FERC ¶ 61,236 (June 29).Google Scholar
Glick, R (2019) Dissenting statement, Calpine Corp. v. PJM Interconnection, Inc., Order establishing just and reasonable rate, 169 FERC ¶ 61,239 (December 19).Google Scholar
Glick, R (2020) Dissenting statement, New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Order rejecting tariff revisions, 172 FERC ¶ 61,206 (September 4).Google Scholar
Goggin, M and Gramlich, R (2020) A Moving Target: An Update on the Consumer Impacts of FERC Interference with State Policies in the PJM Region. Grid Strategies LLC (May).Google Scholar
ICF (2020) ISO-NE auction reveals increases in demand response and renewables. ICF Insights (March 14).Google Scholar
ISO New England (2018) ISO New England Inc., Revisions to ISO New England Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff Related to Competitive Auctions with Sponsored Policy Resources, FERC Docket No. ER18-619 (January 8).Google Scholar
ISO New England (2020) Forward Capacity Auction Results. Available at https://bit.ly/3DZKU4Z.Google Scholar
Joskow, P (1997) Restructuring, competiton and regulation in the US electricity sector. Journal of Economic Perspectives 11, 119–38.Google Scholar
Kowalski, KM (2020) Challenged federal rule could price many renewables out of PJM’s capacity market. Energy News Network (January 23).Google Scholar
Macey, J and Ward, R (2021) MOPR Madness. Energy Law Journal 42, 67–122.Google Scholar
Mankiw, NG (2015) Principles of Microeconomics, 7th edn, Stamford, CT: Cengage.Google Scholar
Maryland Office of People’s Counsel (2009) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Request for rehearing of the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, FERC Docket Nos. ER05-1410, EL05-148, & ER09-412 (April 24, 2009).Google Scholar
Maryland Public Utility Commission (2011) Request for Proposals for Generation Capacity Resources Under Long-Term Contract (September 29).Google Scholar
Miller, RB, Butterklee, NH, and Comes, M (2012) Buyer-side mitigation in organized capacity markets: time for a change? Energy Law Journal 33, 449–73.Google Scholar
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (2020) In the Matter of BPU Investigation of Resource Adequacy Alternatives, Order initiating proceeding, NJ Board of Public Utilities Docket No. EO20030203.Google Scholar
NewJersey Statutes § 48:3–98.3.Google Scholar
New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (2020b) 2020 Load & Capacity Data. Accessed at https://bit.ly/3vq4y7b.Google Scholar
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (2009) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Protest of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Dockets ER06-1410 and ER09-412 (January 9).Google Scholar
Perez, AP, Sauma, EE, Munoz, F, and Hobbs, BF (2016). The economic effects of interregional trading of renewable energy certificates in the US WECC. Energy Journal 37, 267–95.Google Scholar
Pfeifenberger, J, Newell, S, Spees, K, Hajos, A, and Madjarov, K (2011) Second Performance Assessment of PJM’s Reliability Pricing Model. Prepared by the Brattle Group for PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (August 26).Google Scholar
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (2006a) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Settlement agreement and explanatory statement of the settling parties resolving all issues, FERC Docket Nos. EL05-148 and ER05–1410.Google Scholar
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (2006b) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Settlement agreement and offer of settlement, FERC Docket Nos. EL05-148 and ER05–1410.Google Scholar
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (2009) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Explanatory statement, offer of settlement, and settlement agreement, FERC Docket Nos. ER05-1410, EL05-148, & ER09-412 (February 9, 2009).Google Scholar
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (2011) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Revisions to PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Docket No. ER11-2875 (February 11).Google Scholar
PJM Power Providers Group (2011) PJM Power Providers Group v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Complaint and request for clarification requesting fast track processing, FERC Docket No. EL11-20 (February 1).Google Scholar
Powers, M (2011) New Jersey and Maryland look for options to PJM pricing model. Electric Utility Week (January 3).Google Scholar
RPM Buyers (2008) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., RPM Buyers’ motion for technical conference, FERC Docket Nos. ER05-1410 & EL05–148.Google Scholar
Rutigliano, T (2020) FERC’s power grab. NRDC Expert Blog (April 21).Google Scholar
Stoddard, RB (2006) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Supplemental affidavit, settlement agreement and explanatory statement of the settling parties Resolving All Issues, FERC Docket Nos. EL05-148 and ER05-1410 (September 28).Google Scholar
United States Supreme Court (2016a) Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, 136 S. Ct. 1288, 1299.Google Scholar
United States Supreme Court (2016b) CPV Power Holdings v. Talen Energy Marketing, 136 S. Ct. 1728.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×