Chairman Richard Glick Statement
February 18, 2021
Docket No. ER18-619-002
Order: E-24
I concur in the determination in today’s order that a second rehearing request is not permitted. That conclusion does not, however, prevent Clean Energy Advocates from pursuing on appeal any of their arguments regarding the efficacy of the Competitive Auctions with Sponsored Policy Resources (CASPR) construct, which they have contested from the outset of this proceeding,[1] or the Commission’s justification of its conclusions on that score.
In addition, I feel compelled to explain why the Commission’s conclusion in today’s order—namely, that the November Rehearing Order did not consider or rely on data regarding the two Forward Capacity Auctions conducted after the Commission accepted CASPR[2]—only underscores my concerns regarding the November Rehearing Order. As I explained in dissenting from that order, because the Commission failed to act on the rehearing requests for nearly three years after accepting CASPR, we had before us ample evidence that CASPR was failing to adequately accommodate state public policies.[3] I continue to believe that this real-world experience supported a grant of rehearing and that the Commission erred in failing to adequately consider that evidence.[4]
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] See, e.g., ISO New England Inc., 173 FERC ¶ 61,161, at PP 61-64 (2020) (Rehearing Order) (summarizing Clean Energy Advocates’ rehearing request); ISO New England Inc., 162 FERC ¶ 61,205, at PP 91-92, 95 (2018) (summarizing Clean Energy Advocates’ comments).
[2] ISO New England Inc., 174 FERC ¶ 61,120, at P 6 (2021).
[3] Rehearing Order, 173 FERC ¶ 61,161 (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting at PP 1, 10-12).
[4] Id. (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting at P 11).