Item E-2: Commissioner Mark C. Christie Dissent Regarding Participation of Aggregators of Retail Demand Response Customers in Markets Operated by RTOs and ISOs

Commissioner Mark C. Christie Statement
March 18, 2021
Docket No. RM21-14-000
NOI 
Item:  E-2

As Bob Dylan said, you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, and while styled as a Notice of Inquiry (NOI), it is apparent that this order’s end game is to repeal or severely restrict the “opt-out” provisions of Order Nos. 719 and 719-A.[1] 

Since those orders were issued, eighteen states have chosen to use the opt-out provision.[2]  Presumably those states made those decisions for reasons that were consistent with their own public policy needs and preferences.  FERC should respect those state policy decisions; however, because those states (and potentially others in the future) have exercised their own policy choices, the majority now seeks to block states from making such choices.          

I therefore dissent for the same fundamental reasons expressed in my dissent today to Order No. 2222-A[3]:  at a time when we hear many voices – including some on this Commission – demanding that FERC ‘respect’ state public policies in RTO/ISO capacity markets when it comes to the MOPR cases, this order goes in the exact opposite direction.  We see in this NOI another example that for some, ‘respecting’ state public policies only applies when the states are doing what they want.

I further note, as I discussed today in my dissent to Order No. 2222-A, that combined with that order this one substantially raises the costs to states of participating in RTOs/ISOs.[4]  Some states not in RTOs/ISOs may well choose to continue to stay out; those in RTOs/ISOs may well choose to reconsider their participation, if the cost of participation is to be blocked by FERC from exercising significant portions of their historic powers over the retail side of regulation.

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.