PJM ITC Tariff Splits With Midwest

 

Rising gas prices spark a rush to wind farms, straining grid capacity and raising larger issues about market design.

When the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) was drafting rules to encourage the use of renewable energy, it took pains to guard against the chance that power producers would fail to reach the state's target of 400 megawatts (MW) in installed new renewable generation capacity by Jan. 1, 2002. The commission needn't have worried.

How state opposition cowed the feds and turned a powerful rule into just a set of talking points.

A funny thing happened on the way to a standard market design (SMD). What began as a full-fledged rulemaking-with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) giving instructions and imposing deadlines on the electric utility industry-now has degenerated into little more than a set of talking points.

Talk about cold feet.

Trading is dead. At least that’s what some analysts are saying about the electricity markets. “Trading died with Enron on Dec. 2, 2001,” says Mark Williams, an energy risk management expert at Boston University. Whether trading is really dead or not, some signs of a rebirth are beginning to emerge.

Planned or Private?

 

 

The sound and fury over trading scandals, credit defaults, and market manipulation so far has drowned out much of the mind-numbing debate over a standard market design (SMD), and rightly so. Utilities understand (as does the press) that Enron, "Deathstar," and "Get Shorty" will always sell more newspapers than locational pricing or congestion management.

FERC's Standard Market Design: Too Detailed To Evolve

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's standard market design (SMD) proposal states objectives that are important and supportable, both theoretically and empirically. Uniform rules and business practices reduce transaction costs and limit opportunities for institutional arbitrage, increase the extent of the market, and increase market liquidity and investment.