FERC 2222 號令：RTO 合規計劃揭示了分佈式能源整合的區域差異

本報告提供有關迄今為止所有 RTO/ISO 訂單 2222 合規性提交和 FERC 響應的信息。

內容

第 1 章合規計劃在 2222 號令的實施中顯示出巨大的區域差異

第二章背景

第 3 章建議

第 4 章全面實施的 2222 號命令可能徹底改變美國電力市場，使幾乎所有利益相關者受益

• 合規性文件顯示，分散式能源資源整合的程度和速度在不斷擴大的地區差異
  • 加利福尼亞獨立電網運營商
  • 紐約獨立電網運營商
  • 互連賓夕法尼亞-澤西-馬裡蘭
  • 新英格蘭的獨立電網運營商
  • 中部大陸的獨立系統運營商
  • 西南電力池
  • 德州電氣可靠性委員會
• 合規申請提出了關於 2222 號命令實施的未解決問題
  • 根據 719 號命令，州監管機構可能有權禁止參與 DR 總體批發市場
• 如果僅限於單個傳輸節點，分佈式能源聚合能否有效運行？
• 州監管機構、DU 和 RTO/ISO 是否完全有能力共同努力，協調分佈式能源的零售和批發市場？
• RTO/ISO 會採用標準的 DER 聚合參與模式嗎？
• 小型電力公司的選擇加入條款是否有效地阻止了地方電力合作社和公共電力公司的參與？

第 5 章淨計量程序和 FERC 專有語言可能會無意中阻止 2222 號令的有效性

This Guidehouse Insights strategy insight summarizes every RTO/ISO Order 2222 compliance filing and FERC's responses, to date. It analyzes outstanding issues that could impact how Order 2222 is implemented and whether the order effectively integrates distributed energy resources into wholesale power markets; it also assesses the risk and consequences of particular outcomes. Evaluating differences in implementation schemes across the RTOs/ISOs forecasts how Order 2222 implementation could impact various market players in the near and long term.

Table of Contents

1. Compliance Plans Show Wide Regional Disparity on Order 2222 Implementation

2. Context

3. Recommendations

4. Fully Im plemented, Order 2222 Has the Potential to Revolutionize US Power Markets and Benefit Nearly Every Stakeholder

4.1 Compliance Filings Reveal Widening Regional Gaps in Scope and Speed of Distributed Energy Resource Integration

4.1.1 California Independent System Operator

4.1.1.1 CAISO Uses Sub-LAPs to Permit Multi-nodal Aggregations

4.1.1.2 CAISO Limits DUs Ability to Block DER and DR Participation

4.1.1.3 FERC Responds to CAISO

4.1.2 New York Independent System Operator

4.1.2.1 NYISO Limits Aggregation to Single, Authorized Nodes

4.1.2.2 NYISO Tweaks Existing Participation Models, But Imposes Restrictions on DERA

4.1.2.3 NYISO Proposes Bizarre Small Utility Opt-in Provision

4.1.2.4 FERC Ordered NYISO to Resubmit, Omitting DERA Restrictions and Amending Small Utility Opt-In

4.1.3 Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland Interconnection

4.1.3.1 FERC Functionally Accepted PJM's Plan, Including Restrictions on Multi-nodal Aggregations

4.1.4 New England Independent System Operator

4.1.4.1 Employing DRR Aggregation Zones to Facilitate (Some) Multi-Nodal Aggregations

4.1.4.2 ISO-NE Proposed Restricting Broader Participation Until New England Deploys Advanced Metering Infrastructure

4.1.4.3 ISO-NE Deviates from FERC's Language for Small Utility Opt-in Provision

4.1.4.4 FERC Requests Additional Information from ISO-NE

4.1.5 The Midcontinent Independent System Operator

4.1.5.1 Restricting Aggregations to Single Pricing Nodes

4.1.5.2 Coordinating with State Regulators and DUs

4.1.5.3 Proposing October 1, 2029, as the Effective Implementation Date

4.1.6 Southwest Power Pool

4.1.6.1 SPP Adopts Resource Types in Lieu of Participation Models

4.1.6.2 SPP Imposes (by Implication) a 10 MW Maximum Capacity Cap

4.1.6.3 SPP Proposed December 31, 9998 as its Effective Implementation Date

4.1.7 Electric Reliability Council of Texas

4.2 Compliance Filings Raise Unresolved Questions About Order 2222 Implementation

4.2.1 Do State Regulators Have Authority Under Order 719 to Bar DR Aggregations from Participating in Wholesale Markets?

4.2.1.1 Order 2222-a Clarified Order 719

4.2.1.2 Order 2222-b Rescinded Order 2222-a

4.3 Can Distributed Energy Resource Aggregations Operate Effectively if Confined to a Single Transmission Node?

4.4 Can State Regulators, DUs, and RTOs/ISOs Cooperate Sufficiently to Harmonize Retail and Wholesale Markets for Distributed Energy Resources?

4.5 Will RTOs/ISOs Adopt a Standard DER Aggregation Participation Model?

4.6 Does the Small Utility Opt-in Provision Effectively Block Participation by Rural Electric Cooperatives and Public Power Providers?

5. Net Metering Programs-and FERC's Own Language-May Inadvertently Stunt Order 2222's Effectiveness

List of Tables

• Order 2222-RTO/ISO Compliance Plans At-a-Glance