169 FERC ¶ 61,225
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Before Commissioners: Neil Chatterjee, Chairman;
Richard Glick and Bernard L. McNamee.
New York Independent System Operator, Inc.Docket Nos. ER19-467-000
ER19-467-001
ER19-467-002
ORDER ON COMPLIANCE FILING
(Issued December 20, 2019)
1. On December 3, 2018, as amended on May 1, 2019 and May 31, 2019, New York
Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) submitted proposed revisions to its Market
Administration and Control Area Services Tariff (Services Tariff) and Open Access
Transmission Tariff (OATT)1 in compliance with the requirements of Order No. 841,2
which removes barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in the capacity,
energy, and ancillary service markets operated by Regional Transmission Organizations
and Independent System Operators (RTO/ISO markets). In this order, we accept in part,
and reject in part, NYISO’s compliance filing, subject to a further compliance filing to be
submitted within 60 days of the date of issuance of this order, as discussed below. As
part of its further compliance filing, we direct NYISO to propose an effective date for its
compliance filing that is no later than May 1, 2020, as discussed below.3
I.Background
2.In Order No. 841, the Commission adopted reforms to remove barriers to the
participation of electric storage resources in RTO/ISO markets.4 The Commission
1 Appendix A lists the Services Tariff and OATT sections filed by NYISO. Capitalized terms that are not defined in this order have the meaning specified in Section 2 of the Services Tariff or section 1 of the OATT.
2 Electric Storage Participation in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 (2018), order on reh’g, Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 (2019).
3 See infra P 223.
4 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 1.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 2 -
modified section 35.28 of its regulations5 to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to
establish market rules that, recognizing the physical and operational characteristics of
electric storage resources, facilitate their participation in the RTO/ISO markets. The
Commission found that Order No. 841 will enhance competition and, in turn, help to
ensure that the RTO/ISO markets produce just and reasonable rates, pursuant to the
Commission’s legal authority under Federal Power Act (FPA) section 206.6
3. Order No. 841 required each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to establish a
participation model for electric storage resources consisting of market rules that,
recognizing the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources, will
help facilitate their participation in the RTO/ISO markets.7 Specifically, for each
RTO/ISO, the tariff provisions for the participation model for electric storage resources
must: (1) ensure that a resource using the participation model is eligible to provide all
capacity, energy, and ancillary services that it is technically capable of providing in the
RTO/ISO markets; (2) ensure that a resource using the participation model can be
dispatched and can set the wholesale market clearing price as both a wholesale seller and
wholesale buyer consistent with existing market rules that govern when a resource can set
the wholesale price; (3) account for the physical and operational characteristics of electric
storage resources through bidding parameters or other means; and (4) establish a
minimum size requirement for participation in the RTO/ISO markets that does not exceed
100 kW. Additionally, each RTO/ISO must specify that the sale of electric energy from
the RTO/ISO markets to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to
those markets must be at the wholesale locational marginal price (LMP).8
II.Compliance Filing
4.In its December 3, 2018 filing, NYISO proposes tariff revisions to establish a new
participation model (i.e., a dispatch-only model) for electric storage resources’
participation in the NYISO-administered energy, ancillary services, and Installed
Capacity markets.9 NYISO explains that the proposed tariff revisions build upon
NYISO’s existing Commission-approved market, planning, and market power mitigation
5 18 C.F.R. § 35.28 (2019).
6 16 U.S.C. § 824e (2018).
7 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 3. In Order No. 841, the Commission referred to a set of tariff provisions that are created for a particular type of resource as a participation model. Id.
8 Id. P 4.
9 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 1.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 3 -
provisions and are designed to be compatible with existing rules and processes.10 NYISO asserts that its proposed tariff revisions are just and reasonable and fully comply with the directives of Order No. 841.
5. NYISO requests an effective date of no earlier than May 1, 2020 for the proposed tariff revisions because the software platform upon which the proposed tariff revisions will be implemented is currently undergoing a significant upgrade.11 NYISO proposes to submit a filing at least two weeks in advance of its intended effective date, specifying the date on which the tariff revisions submitted in this compliance filing will take effect.
NYISO also requests that the proposed tariff revisions concerning the reinstatement of the Category III Examined Facilities under the Buyer Side Market Power (BSM) Rules become effective one day after the Commission issues an order accepting them, unless the timing of the order is such that immediate effectiveness would disrupt NYISO’s
administration of its Class Year process or the BSM Rules.12
6. On April 1, 2019, Commission staff issued a data request advising NYISO that
additional information was necessary to process its December 3, 2018 filing (Data
Request).13 On May 1, 2019, in Docket No. ER19-467-001, NYISO filed a response to
the Data Request, which amended its compliance filing (Data Request Response).
7.On May 31, 2019, in Docket No. ER19-467-002, NYISO filed limited tariff
revisions amending its compliance filing, and requested that these revisions become
effective on the dates originally proposed in its December 3, 2018 compliance filing
(Amended Compliance Filing).
III.Notice of Filing and Responsive Pleadings
8.Notice of NYISO’s December 3, 2018 filing was published in the Federal
Register, 83 Fed. Reg. 63,852 (2018), with interventions and protests due on or before
10 Id. at 2.
11 Id. at 2.
12 Id. at 65.
13 N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER19-467-000, at 1 (Apr. 1, 2019).
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 4 -
December 24, 2018. On December 14, 2018, the Commission extended the comment period until and including February 7, 2019.14
9. Notice of NYISO’s May 1, 2019 Data Request Response was published in the Federal Register, 84 Fed. Reg. 20,351 (2019), with interventions and protests due on or before May 22, 2019.
10. Notice of NYISO’s May 31, 2019 Amended Compliance Filing was published in the Federal Register, 84 Fed. Reg. 26,412 (2019), with interventions and protests due on or before June 21, 2019.
11. Advanced Energy Economy; American Public Power Association; City of
New York; Earthjustice; Electric Power Supply Association; EDF Renewables, Inc. (EDF
Renewables); Energy Storage Association; Exelon Corporation; GlidePath Development
LLC; Helix Ravenswood, LLC; Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc.
(IPPNY); Institute for Policy Integrity, New York University School of Law (Institute for
Public Integrity); Lincoln Clean Energy, LLC; Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) and the Sustainable FERC Project; National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association (NRECA); New York Association of Public Power; NextEra Energy
Resources, LLC (NextEra); NRG Power Marketing LLC; Penn Oak Services, LLC;
NYISO Market Monitoring Unit (NYISO MMU); New York Transmission Owners
(NYTOs);15 and Voith Hydro, Inc. (Voith Hydro) filed timely motions to intervene.
12. Advanced Energy Economy; the Institute for Policy Integrity; IPPNY; NYISO MMU;16 NYTOs; and Voith Hydro filed timely comments. Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) also filed timely comments but did not file a motion to intervene.
14 Notice of Extension of Time, Docket Nos. ER19-460-000, ER19-462-000, ER19-465-000, ER19-467-000, ER19-468-000, ER19-469-000, and ER19-470-000 (December 14, 2018).
15 NYTOs include Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Consolidated
Edison Company of New York, Inc., Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a National
Grid, New York Power Authority, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Orange
and Rockland Utilities, Inc., Power Supply Long Island, and Rochester Gas and Electric
Corporation.
16 NYISO MMU filed comments on February 25, 2019 and May 22, 2019. We note that NYISO MMU characterized its February 25, 2019 pleading as an answer. We treat NYISO MMU’s February 25, 2019 pleading as comments because, in substance, NYISO MMU provided comments on NYISO’s December 3, 2019 filing.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 5 -
13. City of New York; NextEra; EDF Renewables; Energy Storage Association;
IPPNY; NRDC;17 NYTOs; and Public Interest Organizations filed timely protests.18
14. New York State Public Service Commission and New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority (together, New York State Entities) collectively filed a notice of intervention, timely motion to intervene, and protests.
15.On February 22, 2019, New York State Entities, NRECA, and NYISO each filed
answers. On February 27, 2019, IPPNY filed an answer. On March 22, 2019, Energy
Storage Association filed an answer.
IV. Discussion
A.Procedural Matters
16.Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 C.F.R. § 385.214 (2019), the notices of intervention and timely, unopposed motions to
intervene serve to make the entities that filed them parties to this proceeding. The entities
that filed protests or comments but did not file motions to intervene are not parties to the
proceeding.19
17. Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R.
§ 385.213(a)(2) (2019), prohibits an answer to a protest or an answer unless otherwise
ordered by the decisional authority. We accept the answers filed in this proceeding
because they have provided information that assisted us in our decision-making process.
17 NRDC filed a protest on May 15, 2019. We note that NRDC characterized its
May 15, 2019 pleading as an answer. We treat NRDC’s May 15, 2019 pleading as a
protest because, in substance, NRDC protested NYISO’s May 1, 2019 Data Request
Response.
18 Public Interest Organizations include NRDC, Earthjustice, Sustainable FERC Project, Acadia Center, Sierra Club, and Association of Affordability, Inc.
19 18 C.F.R. § 385.211(a)(2) (2019). Tesla filed comments but did not file a
motion to intervene. As part of Public Interest Organizations’ protest, Acadia Center, Sierra Club, and Association of Affordability, Inc. filed protests but did not file motions to intervene. Although we do not grant party status to these entities, we address Tesla’s comments and Public Interest Organizations’ protest in this order.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 6 -
B.Substantive Matters
18.As discussed below, we accept in part, and reject in part, NYISO’s compliance
filing, subject to a further compliance filing to be submitted within 60 days of the date of issuance of this order. As part of its further compliance filing, we direct NYISO to
propose an effective date for its compliance filing that is no later than May 1, 2020, as
discussed below.
19. As a preliminary matter, we find that NYISO’s proposal complies with the
requirement that each RTO/ISO establish a minimum size requirement that does not
exceed 100 kW for participation of electric storage resources in the RTO/ISO markets.20 NYISO proposes a minimum size requirement of 100 kW.21 NYISO’s compliance with this requirement is not contested. All remaining compliance requirements and all
comments and protests are addressed below.
1.Definition of Electric Storage Resource
20.To identify the set of resources that are eligible to use the required participation
model for electric storage resources, Order No. 841 revised section 35.28(b) of the
Commission’s regulations22 to define an electric storage resource as “a resource capable
of receiving electric energy from the grid and storing it for later injection of electric
energy back to the grid.”23 Order No. 841 explained that this definition is intended to
cover electric storage resources capable of receiving electric energy from the grid and
storing it for later injection of electric energy back to the grid, regardless of their storage
medium (e.g., batteries, flywheels, compressed air, and pumped-hydro). Additionally,
Order No. 841 provided that electric storage resources located on the interstate
transmission system, on a distribution system, or behind the meter fall under this
definition. Further, because electric storage resources that inject electric energy back to
the grid for purposes of participating in an RTO/ISO market are engaging in a sale of
electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce, the Commission found that they
must fulfill certain responsibilities set forth in the FPA and the Commission’s rules and
regulations.24 However, the Commission declined for purposes of Order No. 841 to
20 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 270.
21 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 23; proposed Services Tariff, § 4.1.4.
22 18 C.F.R § 35.28(b).
23 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 29.
24 Id. P 30. Examples of such responsibilities include filing rates under FPA
section 205 (potentially including obtaining market-based rate authority); submitting
filings related to corporate mergers and other activities under FPA sections 203 and 204;
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 7 -
broaden the definition of “electric storage resources” to apply to behind-the-meter
electric storage resources that do not inject electricity onto the grid.25 Further, the
definition of an electric storage resource excludes a resource that is either: (1) physically
incapable of injecting electric energy back onto the grid due to its design or
configuration; or (2) contractually barred from injecting electric energy back onto the
grid.26
a.NYISO’s Filing
21.Under NYISO’s new dispatch-only participation model, NYISO proposes to
define Energy Storage Resource to include:
Generators that receive Energy from the grid at a specified location, and are capable of storing that Energy, for later injection back onto the grid at the same location. Resources that cannot inject Energy onto the grid cannot be Energy Storage Resources. In order to
qualify for wholesale market participation, Energy Storage
Resources must be able to inject at a rate of at least 0.1 MW for a
period of at least one hour. Energy Storage Resources are
Withdrawal-Eligible Generators.27
NYISO adds that its proposed qualification requirements do not limit the electric storage facilities eligible to use its participation model to a particular type of electric storage facility or technology.28
and fulfilling FPA section 301 accounting obligations and FPA section 305(b)
interlocking directorate obligations. Id. n.50 (citing 16 U.S.C. §§ 824b, 824c, 824d, 825, 825d(b)).
25 Id. P 32.
26 Id. P 33.
27 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 12-13; proposed Services Tariff, § 2.5. A
Withdrawal-Eligible Generator is “[a] Generator that is eligible to withdraw energy from the grid at a price for the purposes of recharging or refilling for later injection back into the grid.” NYISO Services Tariff, § 2.23, Definitions - W.
28 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 13.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 8 -
b.Protests/Comments
22.New York State Entities contend that NYISO fails to comply with the Order
No. 841 directive to eliminate market barriers by proposing a participation model that
prohibits resource aggregation, which in turn will prevent smaller resources from entering
the market and should be rejected.29 Tesla urges the Commission to require NYISO to
apply existing rules regarding aggregation to electric storage resources until NYISO
submits tariff revisions to change the existing rules to accommodate electric storage
resources.30
c.Data Request Response
23.In its Data Request, Commission staff asked NYISO to provide the rationale for
including the phrase “at a specified location” in the definition of Energy Storage
Resource, and to explain whether this definition would prevent the aggregation of Energy
Storage Resources. In its Data Request Response, NYISO states that it included the
phrase “at a specified location” in its definition of Energy Storage Resource so that an
electric storage facility must receive and inject energy at the same location on the grid to
qualify as an Energy Storage Resource. NYISO states that, consistent with its definition,
electric storage facilities that are aggregated behind the same meter at the same point of
interconnection may qualify and participate as a single Energy Storage Resource in the
NYISO-administered markets.31 NYISO also explains that it included this location
requirement because, at the time of the compliance filing, it did not have rules that would
permit an aggregation of electric storage facilities at multiple, disparate locations to
qualify and participate in the NYISO-administered markets as a single Energy Storage
Resource. However, NYISO states that its stakeholders recently approved tariff changes
to establish new market rules for aggregations, which apply to all Generators, including
Distributed Energy Resources,32 electric storage resources, and other resources located at
different interconnection points behind the same transmission node.33
29 New York State Entities at 10-11, 38-39.
30 Tesla Comments at 23-24.
31 NYISO Data Request Response at 2 n.8.
32 Id. at 3.
33 Id. at 2-3 n.9 (noting that it believes that requirements for aggregation of electric storage resources “should be addressed through each region’s stakeholder process to
accommodate each region’s unique market framework, system characteristics, and
operational requirements.”).
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 9 -
d.Commission Determination
24.We find that NYISO’s proposed definition of an Energy Storage Resource
complies with the requirements of Order No. 841 because an electric storage resource
participating in the NYISO-administered markets is capable of receiving electric energy
from the grid and storing it for later injection back to the grid, regardless of their storage
medium. We also find that, as required by Order No. 841, NYISO’s proposed Energy
Storage Resource definition covers electric storage resources capable of receiving electric
energy from the grid and storing it for later injection back to the grid, regardless of
whether the resources are located on the interstate transmission system, on a distribution
system, or behind the meter.
25. In response to New York State Entities’ and Tesla’s comments, we also find that
NYISO’s compliance proposal to prohibit aggregation of electric storage facilities at
multiple, disparate locations does not conflict with Order No. 841. Order No. 841 only
requires RTOs/ISOs to address the participation of non-aggregated electric storage
resources in RTO/ISO markets.34 We note that, on June 27, 2019, in Docket No. ER19-
2276-000, NYISO filed proposed tariff revisions to implement its new market rules for
aggregations, including aggregation requirements for Distributed Energy Resources,
electric storage resources, and other resources located at different interconnection points
behind the same transmission node. Those tariff revisions are currently pending before
the Commission.
2.Creation of a Participation Model
a.Participation Model
26.Order No. 841 adds section 35.28(g)(9)(i) to the Commission’s regulations to
require that each RTO/ISO have tariff provisions providing a participation model for
electric storage resources consisting of market rules that, recognizing the physical and
operational characteristics of electric storage resources, facilitate their participation in the
RTO/ISO markets.35 Order No. 841 explains that establishing a participation model for
electric storage resources does not preclude an RTO/ISO from structuring its markets
based on the technical requirements that a resource must meet to provide needed services;
it simply requires that each RTO/ISO establish a participation model that ensures
eligibility to participate in the RTO/ISO markets in a way that recognizes the physical
and operational characteristics of electric storage resources.36 Order No. 841 requires
34 Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at PP 30, 143, 155.
35 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 51.
36 Id. P 52.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 10 -
that resources using the participation model for electric storage resources be compensated for the wholesale services they provide in the same manner as other resources that
provide these services.
27. Separate participation models are not necessary for different types of electric
storage resources (e.g., slower, faster, or aggregated), and to the extent an RTO/ISO
seeks to include in its tariff additional market rules that accommodate electric storage
resources with specific physical and operational characteristics, the RTO/ISO may
propose such revisions to its tariff through a separate FPA section 205 filing.37 However,
Order No. 841 states that, where an RTO/ISO already has a separate participation model
that electric storage resources may use (such as participation models for pumped-hydro
resources or demand response), the RTO/ISO is not required to consolidate that
participation model with the participation model for electric storage resources required by
Order No. 841.38 To the extent that an RTO/ISO modifies existing participation models
to comply with Order No. 841, it must ensure that those resulting participation models
are available for all types of electric storage resources and comply with all of the Order
No. 841 requirements.
28. Lastly, Order No. 841 explains that, while the participation model for electric
storage resources should be designed to facilitate the participation of all types of electric
storage technologies, the Commission is not requiring all electric storage resources to use
that participation model.39 Under section 35.28(g)(9) of the Commission’s regulations,
section 35.28(g)(9)(i) applies to resources using the participation model for electric
storage resources and section 35.28(g)(9)(ii) applies to all electric storage resources that
fall under the definition of electric storage resources. Therefore, electric storage
resources that elect not to use the participation model for electric storage resources are
still able to pay the wholesale LMP for the electric energy they purchase from the
RTO/ISO markets and then resell back to those markets. This issue is discussed further
in the Energy Used to Charge Electric Storage Resources section below.
i.NYISO’s Filing
29.NYISO proposes to establish a new participation model that facilitates the
participation of Energy Storage Resources in the NYISO-administered energy, ancillary
services, and Installed Capacity markets. Specifically, NYISO’s proposed tariff revisions
37 Id. P 54 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 824d). In Order No. 841-A, the Commission found
that a single participation model can be designed to be flexible enough to accommodate
any type of electric storage resource. Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at P 65.
38 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 55.
39 Id. P 56.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 11 -
treat Energy Storage Resources as “dispatch-only,” which means that Energy Storage
Resources will offer energy using fully dispatchable, continuous bid curves across their
operating ranges. That is, Energy Storage Resources will be treated as always available
for dispatch, consistent with their bids.40 According to NYISO, Energy Storage
Resources will be required to be dispatchable when they are physically available.41
NYISO explains that electric storage facilities using this participation model will be
modeled as available and ready for dispatch whenever bids are submitted and will be
permitted to submit an incremental bid-curve representing the entire range of the Energy
Storage Resource’s capability.42 NYISO states that withdrawals of energy that are stored
for later injection back to the grid will be treated as “negative generation,” and therefore
will be part of the supply stack. Since such withdrawals are supply, NYISO explains that
energy withdrawals will be settled at the applicable Generator bus Locational Based
Marginal Price (LBMP) and will be able to set the market clearing price.43
30. NYISO states that it considered an alternative proposal that would allow Energy
Storage Resources to be evaluated for both commitment and dispatch.44 However,
NYISO determined that it is not technically feasible at this time to allow Energy Storage
Resources with non-continuous operating ranges between injecting and withdrawing
states (i.e., injecting, withdrawing, and off) to submit bids to inject and withdraw energy
in the same market hour, because doing so significantly increases the time for its software
to develop day-ahead market and real-time market solutions.45 Thus, NYISO proposes a
participation model that recognizes only one operating state (i.e., on) and treats Energy
Storage Resources as fully dispatchable within their operating range.46
31. NYISO states that electric storage facilities with non-continuous dispatch ranges
can elect to participate in NYISO’s new dispatch-only participation model, but that such
40 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 9, 19.
41 Id. at 9, 19.
42 Id. at 9; proposed Services Tariff, §§ 4.2.3, 4.4.1.1.
43 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 9; proposed Services Tariff, § 17.1.
44 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 19.
45 Id. at 19.
46 Id. at 19-20 & n.46.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 12 -
resources may have to buy out their position if they are dispatched to a level that falls within their infeasible operating range.47
32. NYISO explains that, under its new participation model, Energy Storage
Resources are a subset of Generators48 under the NYISO Services Tariff. NYISO states
that, to qualify as an Energy Storage Resource, an electric storage facility must satisfy the qualification requirements to be a Generator, as well as other specified additional
qualification requirements that take into account the physical and operational
characteristics of electric storage facilities, the directives of Order No. 841, and the
capabilities of NYISO’s markets and settlements software.49 NYISO further states that it has revised its registration requirements and market rules to integrate Energy Storage
Resources into its existing market and settlements constructs to provide, to the extent
possible, comparable treatment of Energy Storage Resources and other participants in the NYISO-administered markets.50 NYISO explains that its proposed revisions also
eliminate barriers to entry for the participation of Energy Storage Resources based on
their physical and operational characteristics.51
33. NYISO states that, under its proposal, an electric storage facility participating in
NYISO’s participation model may submit bids to withdraw and inject energy, can self-
schedule megawatts (MW) to withdraw and inject energy, and can set the wholesale
market clearing prices.52 NYISO states that “an electric storage facility using the Energy
Storage Resource participation model is also eligible to provide cost-based Ancillary
Services that the NYISO does not procure through an organized market, such as Voltage
Support Service.”53
34. Additionally, NYISO states that, if an Energy Storage Resource is unable to
respond to a dispatch signal, it may be subject to settlement charges for not following its
47 Id. at 21.
48 Id. at 8; proposed Services Tariff, § 2.5.
49 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 8.
50 Id. at 8.
51 Id.
52 Id. at 9; proposed Services Tariff, § 17.1.
53 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 8-9.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 13 -
Base Point Signal.54 NYISO explains that an Energy Storage Resource will be subject to a Persistent Undergeneration Charge55 when it persistently operates below its energy
schedule, subject to a de minimis tolerance band, and a Persistent Over-Withdrawal
Charge56 when it persistently withdraws energy at a level exceeding its scheduled
withdrawal level, subject to the same de minimis tolerance band. Also, NYISO proposes revisions to its market monitoring requirements to evaluate Energy Storage Resources for economic and physical withholding.57
35. NYISO states that under its existing market rules, electric storage facilities can
currently participate in the NYISO-administered markets under various existing
participation models of Generators, Energy Limited Resources, Limited Energy Storage
Resources,58 or as a component of a Demand Side Resource in certain demand response
programs. NYISO further explains that, although electric storage facilities are currently
eligible to participate as Generators in the NYISO-administered energy and ancillary
services markets, the existing market rules are not tailored to the operating characteristics
of electric storage facilities.59
36. In its initial compliance filing, NYISO submitted tariff revisions to offer its
Energy Limited Resources model60 as an Order No. 841-compliant participation model
54 Id. at 10; proposed Services Tariff, § 4.2.1.3.4.
55 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 33; proposed Services Tariff, § 15.3A.2.8,
Rate Schedule 3-A. The existing Persistent Undergeneration Charge is a charge assessed to generators that persistently undergenerate energy in real-time as compared to their real-time schedules. Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 33.
56 Id. at 33; proposed Services Tariff, § 15.3A.1.2, Rate Schedule 3-A.
57 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 10; proposed Services Tariff, §§ 23.2.4.1.1,
23.2.4.1.2, 23.3.1.2.1.1.1, 23.3.1.2.1.1.2, 23.3.1.2.2.6, 23.3.1.2.1.4, 23.3.1.2.1.5,
23.3.3.3.1.3.3, 23.3.1.3, 23.3.1.3.2, 23.3.1.3.2.1, 23.3.1.3.2.2, 23.3.1.3.2.1, and 23.3.1.4.1.
58 Limited Energy Storage Resources are generators that are not able to sustain
continuous operation at maximum energy withdrawal or maximum energy injection for a minimum period of one hour. Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 6.
59 Id.
60 Energy Limited Resources are Installed Capacity Suppliers that are unable to
operate continuously on a daily basis due to certain restrictions (e.g., environmental
restrictions or the need to re-charge), but that can provide energy for at least four
contiguous hours each day. Id. NYISO’s Energy Limited Resource construct is available
to accommodate resources capable of withdrawing energy for later injection back onto
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 14 -
because it asserts that, under that model, Energy Limited Resources (e.g., pumped-hydro
resources) are eligible to withdraw energy in order to charge or refill.61 However in its
Amended Compliance Filing, NYISO withdrew its tariff revisions for the Energy Limited
Resources model because it determined that it will not be possible for the model to
comply with Order No. 841 by NYISO’s proposed effective date for the compliance
filing.62 NYISO explains that its software for the Energy Limited Resources model does
not allow electric storage facilities, other than the Blenheim-Gilboa Pumped Storage
Power (Gilboa Pumped Storage Power Project), to bid to withdraw energy from the
grid.63 NYISO asserts that it expects its new Energy Storage Resource participation
model to be a superior model for electric storage resources because the model will allow
a resource to offer to be dispatched from its maximum withdrawal level (its Lower
Operating Limit) to its maximum injection level (its Upper Operating Limit).64
ii.Protests/Comments
37.Energy Storage Association argues that NYISO’s conclusion that its software can
only accommodate electric storage resources that are continuous and can operate in a
dispatch-only mode (i.e., without any commitment parameters) results in unequal
treatment under NYISO’s new dispatch-only participation model.65 Energy Storage
Association disagrees with NYISO’s position that it is equivalent treatment to allow non-
continuous storage resources to use either the existing Energy Limited Resource
participation model, which is designed for pumped-hydro resources, or the Energy
Storage Resource participation model, under which these resources bear the risk of being
the grid (due to energy limitations, environmental restrictions or other non-economic reasons), but the minimum generation level and/or minimum withdrawal level will be reflected in the resources’ bids. Id. at 21.
61 See proposed revisions to the definition of Energy Limited Resource, NYISO Services Tariff, § 2.5, Definitions - E.
62 Amended Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 1-2. NYISO states that its
withdrawal of the tariff revisions will not affect tariff provisions that the Commission has previously accepted for the Energy Limited Resources model. Id. at 6.
63 Id. at 1. NYISO notes that the Gilboa Pumped Storage Project is the only
pumped storage resource in the New York Control Area that is able to withdraw energy
from the grid as negative energy to fill its reservoirs. NYISO Data Request Response
at 33.
64 Amended Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 3.
65 Energy Storage Association Protest at 15.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 15 -
dispatched in their infeasible range.66 Energy Storage Association argues that the
Commission intended for Order No. 841 to apply to all types of electric storage resources and NYISO’s lack of a proposal to ensure that non-continuous storage receives non-
discriminatory treatment does not comply with the order.67
38. Advanced Energy Economy states that NYISO’s compliance filing falls short of full compliance by treating electric storage resources differently from other resources with respect to recovering start-up and no-load costs.68
39. Voith Hydro generally urges the Commission and the RTOs/ISOs to take into
account the technical capability of pumped-hydro in providing a number of services in
the RTO/ISO markets. For example, pumped hydro has the ability to: (1) provide
reliable, long duration generation capacity; (2) deliver energy from all sources (e.g.,
pumped hydro can store excess energy generated by nuclear plants during off-peak hours
and then release the energy back to the grid during peak hours); (3) provide spinning and
non-spinning reserves; (4) provide black start capabilities; and (5) set the wholesale
market clearing price.69
40. Energy Storage Association states that it is unclear how NYISO’s Order No. 841
compliance approach will be applied to electric storage resources co-located with
generation. Energy Storage Association concludes that this is an issue that needs further
evaluation and, accordingly, requests that the Commission open a generic docket focused
on tariff provisions for co-location.70 Energy Storage Association argues that NYISO’s
filing does not address the myriad ways in which Order No. 841 compliance affects the
market participation of hybrid resources that include energy storage.71 Energy Storage
66 Id. (citing Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 21).
67 Id. (citing Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 61 (“[qualification criteria] must not limit participation under the electric storage resource participation model to any particular type of electric storage resource or other technology and must ensure that the RTO/ISO is able to dispatch a resource in a way that recognizes its physical and
operational characteristics and optimizes its benefits to the RTO/ISO.”)).
68 Advanced Energy Economy Comments at 2.
69 Voith Hydro Comments at 2-7.
70 Energy Storage Association Comments at 16.
71 Energy Storage Association explains that questions regarding what category
hybrid resources should register as; how they are parameterized in market software; what
their capacity value is; how they interconnect; and other topics need to be addressed. Id.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 16 -
Association concludes that lack of clarity in these matters may ultimately constrain the
participation of hybrid resources that include electric storage, and therefore may represent an unreasonable barrier to market participation.72
41. Public Interest Organizations state that it may be economically efficient to co-
locate generation and storage project components behind a single point of interconnection onto the NYISO system.73 Public Interest Organizations therefore request that the
Commission open a generic docket to develop market rules for electric storage resources that are co-located with generation.74
iii.Data Request Response
42.In its Data Request Response, NYISO states that the advanced technologies being
considered for future deployment in New York as Energy Storage Resources, including the projects in the existing queue, will be continuously dispatchable whenever they are available.75 NYISO also states that these advanced technologies, which are batterybased, will not have start-up costs.76 NYISO therefore expects all these electric storage resources that participate through its new dispatch-only model will be able to recover their costs through incremental offers.77
iv.Commission Determination
43.We find that NYISO’s proposed tariff revisions establishing a new dispatch-only
participation model for Energy Storage Resources comply with the requirement of Order No. 841 to create a participation model for electric storage resources that ensures the
eligibility of such resources to participate in NYISO’s markets in a way that recognizes their physical and operational characteristics. We find that NYISO’s proposal will
facilitate the participation of all types of electric storage technologies and will allow these resources to be compensated for the wholesale services that they provide in the same
manner as other resources that provide these services.
72 Id.
73 Public Interest Organizations Protest at 29.
74 Id. at 28.
75 NYISO Data Request Response at 8-9.
76 Id. at 19.
77 Id.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 17 -
44. In particular, NYISO demonstrates that its proposed dispatch-only participation
model is available to all electric storage technologies, including pumped-hydro resources,
and thus NYISO’s proposed model complies with Order No. 841 in that respect.
Although electric storage facilities that do not have a continuous dispatch range, such as
pumped-hydro resources, must buy out of their position should they be dispatched under
the new dispatch-only participation model to a level that falls within their infeasible
operating range, we find that this buy-out requirement is reasonable given the physical
and operational characteristics of these non-continuous electric storage resources, and
allows them to be able to participate in NYISO’s markets under NYISO’s dispatch-only
participation model.
45. Further, as Order No. 841 explains, while the participation model for electric
storage resources should be designed to facilitate the participation of all types of electric
storage technologies, the Commission does not require all electric storage resources to
use that participation model. For example, NYISO states that most pumped-hydro
resources lack the flexibility to withdraw energy as negative generation and thus cannot
use the proposed Energy Storage Resource participation model. We note that they may
still choose to use the Energy Limited Resource model to participate in the NYISO-
administered markets.78
46. NYISO expects the Energy Storage Resource participation model to be superior to
its existing Energy Limited Resource model for electric storage resources because a
resource can inject energy in one interval and withdraw energy in the next interval
assuming that the LBMP at its location changes. We agree. In contrast, as NYISO points
out, NYISO’s Energy Limited Resources lack such flexibility because NYISO’s software
does not allow new resources to withdraw energy from the grid to charge or refill.
47. With respect to Advanced Energy Economy’s argument regarding Energy Storage
Resources’ inability to recover start-up and no-load costs under NYISO’s participation
model, we agree with NYISO that currently available battery-based Energy Storage
Resources do not have start-up or no-load costs because they are already synchronized
with the grid and can be dispatched from an idle state, and all Energy Storage Resources
will be able to recover all of their incremental operating costs through their incremental
offers when they are scheduled to operate.79 As discussed below under Section 2.c of this
order (Relationship Between Electric Storage Participation Model and Existing Market
Rules), we find that NYISO’s dispatch-only model does allow resources to include
relevant costs, including opportunity costs, in their energy market bids, similar to other
market participants. Therefore, while NYISO’s model does not specify start-up, no-load,
78 Amended Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 3.
79 NYISO Data Request Response at 9, 19.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 18 -
or related commitment costs, we find that its proposed treatment of Energy Storage
Resources is consistent with how it treats other generators with respect to allowable cost recovery.80
48. Regarding Voith Hydro’s concerns regarding the technical capability of pumped-
hydro resources in providing a number of services in the NYISO market, Order No. 841
states that an RTO/ISO may use a separate participation model for pumped-hydro
resources to participate in an RTO’s/ISO’s markets. Voith Hydro’s Gilboa Pumped
Storage Project participates in the NYISO markets through NYISO’s Energy Limited
Resources model. In Order No. 841, the Commission did not require an RTO/ISO to
consolidate existing participation models with the participation model for electric storage
resources required by Order No. 841.81 We note that Voith Hydro may choose to
participate in NYISO’s new participation model for Energy Storage Resources if it buys
out of its position should it be dispatched to a level that falls within its infeasible
operating range, and we believe that this buy-out requirement is reasonable given the
physical and operational characteristics of these non-continuous electric storage
resources.
49.Finally, we note that, in Order No. 841, the Commission did not address co-
location of electric storage resources with other resources. Therefore, we find
commenters’ requests regarding the participation of co-located resources in NYISO-
administered markets to be beyond the scope of this compliance proceeding.
b.Qualification Criteria for the Participation Model
50.To ensure that the electric storage resource participation model will accommodate
both existing and future technologies, and to implement the new requirement in
section 35.28(g)(9)(i) of the Commission’s regulations, Order No. 841 requires each
RTO/ISO to define in its tariff the criteria that a resource must meet to use the
participation model (i.e., qualification criteria).82 These criteria must: (1) be based on
the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources, such as their ability to both receive and inject electric energy; (2) not limit participation under the electric storage resource participation model to any particular type of electric storage resource or other technology; and (3) ensure that the RTO/ISO is able to dispatch a resource in a way that recognizes its physical and operational characteristics and
optimizes its benefits to the RTO/ISO.
80 Id. at 19.
81 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 55.
82 Id. P 61.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 19 -
51. Order No. 841 provides each RTO/ISO with flexibility to propose qualification
criteria that best suit its participation model for electric storage resources.83 However, the
qualification criteria should not create barriers to the participation of any electric storage
resource in the RTO/ISO markets and should be inclusive of, at a minimum, those
resources set forth under the definition of electric storage resources in Order No. 841.84
i.NYISO’s Filing
52.NYISO states that, under its proposed definition of an Energy Storage Resource,
an electric storage facility must: (1) satisfy NYISO’s qualification requirements to be a
Generator; (2) be capable of receiving electric energy from the grid and storing it for
later injection back to the grid, as required in the Order No. 841 definition of “electric
storage resources;” (3) be able to inject electric energy onto the grid; (4) receive and
inject energy at the same location on the grid; and (5) be able to inject at a rate of at least
0.1 MW of energy for a period of at least one hour.85 NYISO explains that the proposed qualification requirements do not limit the electric storage facilities eligible to use the Energy Storage Resource participation model to a particular type of electric storage
facility or technology.86 NYISO explains that these specific qualification criteria reflect Energy Storage Resources’ unique physical and operational characteristics and comply with the directives in Order No. 841.87
ii.Commission Determination
53.We find that the qualification criteria provided in NYISO’s tariff comply with the
requirements of Order No. 841 because NYISO’s qualification criteria are based on the
physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources and ensure that
NYISO is able to dispatch a resource in a way that recognizes its physical and operational
characteristics and optimizes its benefits to NYISO. Under NYISO’s proposal, an
Energy Storage Resource will be able to inject electric energy onto the grid and receive
energy at the same location on the grid. We also find that NYISO’s qualification criteria
do not create barriers to the participation of any electric storage resource in the NYISO-
83 Id. P 63.
84 Id. P 64.
85 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 13; proposed Services Tariff, § 2.5.
86 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 13.
87 Id. at 8. Section 5 of this order discusses the physical and operational characteristics of NYISO’s energy storage resources.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 20 -
administered markets and are inclusive of those resources set forth under the
Commission’s definition of electric storage resources.
c.Relationship Between Electric Storage Participation
Model and Existing Market Rules
54. To provide certainty to resources using the electric storage resource participation
model about the market rules that will govern their participation in each RTO/ISO
market, and to implement the new requirement in section 35.28(g)(9)(i) of the
Commission’s regulations, Order No. 841 required each RTO/ISO to propose any
necessary additions or modifications to its existing tariff provisions to specify:
(1) whether resources that qualify to use the participation model will participate in the RTO/ISO markets through existing or new market participation agreements; and
(2) whether particular existing market rules apply to resources participating under the
electric storage resource participation model.88 Order No. 841 allowed the use of one or more existing market participation agreements so long as the agreement complies with the terms of Order No. 841.89
i.NYISO’s Filing
55.NYISO states that Energy Storage Resources will be required to register with
NYISO pursuant to its existing customer registration process in order to participate in the
markets.90 NYISO explains that Energy Storage Resources will also have to execute
service agreements under NYISO’s OATT and Services Tariff, and satisfy the existing
customer registration requirements, as modified for Energy Storage Resources.91 NYISO
also proposes to include as part of its registration process requirements that an Energy
Storage Resource must: (i) purchase charging energy from NYISO at the wholesale
LBMP; and (ii) provide an attestation that metering is sufficient to identify only that
energy that is withdrawn for later injection back to the grid.92 NYISO adds that it also
88 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 68.
89 Id. P 69.
90 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 15.
91 Id.
92 Id.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 21 -
proposes to amend its customer registration materials to require an Energy Storage
Resource to submit information concerning the parameters specified in Order No. 841.93
56. As noted above, NYISO states that, under its existing market rules, electric storage facilities can currently participate in the NYISO-administered markets under various
existing participation models of Generators, Energy Limited Resources, Limited Energy Storage Resources, or as a component of a Demand Side Resource in certain demand response programs.94 However, in its Amended Compliance Filing, NYISO submits
tariff corrections to reflect its inability to permit electric storage facilities (other than the Gilboa Pumped Storage Project) that participate in its markets as Energy Limited
Resources to bid to withdraw energy at their electrical locations.95
57. NYISO proposes modifications to Sections 23.2.1 and 23.4.5.7 of its Services
Tariff to apply its existing BSM Rules to all Energy Storage Resources.96 NYISO states that, as a class of Generator, all Energy Storage Resources larger than 2 MW will be subject to the same BSM Rules as other types of Generators larger than 2 MW.
58. NYISO also proposes new changes to the BSM Rules that would govern new
Generators that are 2 MW or less, including Energy Storage Resources. NYISO states
that this would provide consistency across how all Generators are treated.97 NYISO
asserts that, by making the BSM Rule revisions part of its compliance filing, NYISO will
ensure that market participants and investors have clear notice of the BSM Rules’
applicability to an Energy Storage Resource in a Mitigated Capacity Zone.98 NYISO
explains that the reason Generators 2 MW or less are not currently subject to the BSM
Rules is because NYISO eliminated them from its list of facilities subject to BSM Rules
93 These parameters are discussed in this order in Section 5 of this order, which
discusses the physical and operational characteristics of NYISO’s energy storage
resources.
94 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 6.
95 Amended Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 1.
96 Services Tariff, §§ 23.2.1, 23.4.5.7. These sections are part of NYISO’s BSM
Rules.
97 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 51.
98 Id.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 22 -
(Examined Facilities) in 2016.99 NYISO states that, at the time, NYISO did not believe that it was possible for new projects 2 MW or less, which NYISO referred to as
Category III Examined Facilities, to enter NYISO’s markets.100
59. NYISO proposes to allow Energy Storage Resources to account for intertemporal
energy level constraints and reflect relevant opportunity costs related to intertemporal
constraints in real-time bids.101 To effectuate this, NYISO proposes to implement new
software that will permit claimed opportunity costs along with an energy bid.102 NYISO
states that opportunity cost submissions must pass NYISO’s screening process to be
incorporated into an Energy Storage Resource’s reference level.103 NYISO proposes
tariff revisions that will explicitly add opportunity costs as a component of a cost-based
reference level, and a definition of opportunity cost to indicate how NYISO intends to
review offers that include an opportunity cost component.104 In addition, NYISO
proposes to establish a new process, which parallels the existing process for adjusting
fuel cost components of energy offers, to adjust opportunity costs when setting reference
levels.105
60. In addition, NYISO proposes additional language concerning the types of conduct
that may warrant mitigation.106 Specifically, NYISO notes that if an electric storage
resource refuses to offer bids or schedules to withdraw energy for later injection, then
such refusal may constitute physical withholding.107 NYISO further states that economic
99 Examined Facilities are those facilities that are subject to evaluation, and potential mitigation, under the BSM Rules. Id.
100 Id. at 52. See N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 155 FERC ¶ 61,166, at P 1 n.3
(2016).
101 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 40. 102 Id. at 55.
103 Id.
104 Id. at 58; proposed Services Tariff, § 23.3.1.4.1.3.
105 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 58-59.
106 Id. at 56; proposed Services Tariff, § 23.2.4.1.1.
107 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 56; proposed Services Tariff, § 23.2.4.1.1.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 23 -
withholding includes unjustifiably high bids to withdraw energy for generators that set
(either indirectly or directly) a high market clearing price.108
ii.Protests/Comments
61.Some commenters generally support the application of the existing BSM Rules to
Energy Storage Resources in NYISO. NYISO MMU agrees with NYISO that a special exemption for electric storage resources is not warranted.109 Similarly, IPPNY asserts
that NYISO must evaluate Generators as Examined Facilities to determine whether they are eligible for one of the exemptions listed in the Services Tariff, and if not exempt, the offer floor will apply.110
62. Other commenters oppose applying the existing BSM Rules to Energy Storage
Resources. City of New York argues that the Commission should reject the application
of NYISO’s BSM Rules to Energy Storage Resources as unjust and unreasonable because
the qualification requirements for Electric Storage Resources are more rigorous than for
traditional generators.111 New York State Entities argue that subjecting Energy Storage
Resources to potential mitigation creates a significant economic and logistical barrier to
electric storage resource market entry and participation while interfering with legitimate
state policy objectives.112 New York State Entities argue that, because electric storage
resources do not have the incentive or ability to exercise market power, an exemption
similar to the one the Commission recently approved for Special Case Resources
108 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 56; proposed Services Tariff, § 23.2.4.1.2. 109 NYISO MMU February 25, 2019 Comments at 3-4.
110 IPPNY February 7, 2019 Comments at 3. 111 City of New York Protest at 9
112 New York State Entities Protest at 13. See also Public Interest Organizations Protest at 11-14.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 24 -
(SCRs)113 should be applied to Energy Storage Resources.114 Commenters also
expressed concern that subjecting Energy Storage Resources to BSM measures would mean that these resources would be subject to NYISO’s Class Year process, a burden commenters argue would be onerous and cause unnecessary delays.115
63. Some protestors argue the Commission should reject NYISO’s proposal to
reinstate Category III Examined Facilities as beyond the scope of Order No. 841
compliance because it would effectively extend BSM rules to all Generators, not only
energy storage resources, that are 2 MW or less.116 City of New York argues that
NYISO’s proposal is overly broad because it would extend BSM rules to resources that
lack the incentive and ability to exercise market power.117 NYTOs assert that the only
justification NYISO provides for the changes is “the need for consistent rules across
all generation types,” but NYISO does not cite to any supporting language in Order
No. 841.118 NYTOs request that the Commission reject NYISO’s proposed revisions to
the BSM Rules because they would unnecessarily delay market entry for smaller Energy
Storage Resources located in mitigated capacity zones, and will preclude meaningful
evaluation by stakeholders of potential impacts, which is inconsistent with Order
No. 841.119
113 New York State Entities Protest at 14-18. The Services Tariff defines SCRs as: “Demand Side Resources whose Load is capable of being interrupted upon demand at the direction of the ISO, and/or Demand Side Resources that have a Local Generator, which is not visible to the ISO's Market Information System and is rated 100 kW or higher, that can be operated to reduce Load from the NYS Transmission System or the distribution system at the direction of the ISO ” Services Tariff, § 2.19 (16.0.0).
114 New York State Entities Protest at 14-16 (citing N.Y. State Pub. Serv. Comm. v. N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 158 FERC ¶ 61,137 (2017)).
115 City of New York Protest at 10-11; New York State Entities Protest at 23.
116 City of New York Protest at 13-15; NYTOs February 7, 2019 Protest at 7; NYTOs May 22, 2019 Comments at 3-5; New York State Entities Protest at 28-30; Energy Storage Association Protest at 10-11; NRDC Comments at 4; Public Interest Organizations at 7-9.
117 City of New York Protest at 9-10.
118 NYTOs February 7, 2019 Protest at 5. 119 Id. at 10.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 25 -
64. In contrast, some commenters support NYISO’s proposal to apply BSM Rules to
Generators 2 MW or less by reinstating Category III Examined Facilities to the BSM
Rules. NYISO MMU supports NYISO’s proposal, and argues that if these rules are not
reinstated, then resources under 2 MW will be mitigated automatically without any way
to receive a legitimate exemption.120 NYISO MMU argues that the size of resources is
irrelevant because of the aggregate amount of generating capacity that receives out-of-
market subsidies.121
65. Advanced Energy Economy states that NYISO’s evaluation of opportunity costs may not fully address the opportunity costs that an Energy Storage Resource may face, which could result in NYISO inappropriately mitigating the Energy Storage Resource to a reference level offer below its true short-run marginal cost.122 For example, Advanced Energy Economy argues that customers could face significant costs in higher demand charges if they opt to participate in NYISO’s markets.123
iii.Answers
66.NYISO states that the rules for developing opportunity costs filed in this
proceeding are already sufficient to permit Energy Storage Resources to demonstrate, and for NYISO to consider and accept (where appropriate) as a valid opportunity cost, the incremental cost increase that the co-located and co-metered retail load will incur if its retail demand charge increases as a result of wholesale market dispatch.124
67. NYISO clarifies that the proposed BSM Rules to reinstate Category III Examined Facilities do not revise the Class Year Process. NYISO explains that resources 2 MW or less are not subject to the Class Year delivery requirements. NYISO affirms that its proposal “would result in these resources being subject to a Buyer Side Mitigation
evaluation in tandem with a Class Year Study, but would not subject such resources to the deliverability analysis within the Class Year Study itself.”125
120 NYISO MMU February 25, 2019 Comments at 5. 121 Id. at 4.
122 Advanced Energy Economy Comments at 13.
123 Id.
124 NYISO Answer at 14-15. 125 Id. at 19.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 26 -
68. In response to IPPNY’s claims that the BSM Rules should apply to Energy
Storage Resources, New York State Entities argue that electric storage resources smaller than 20 MW are not net buyers of capacity, do not have buyer-side market power, and have no incentive to suppress capacity prices.126 New York State Entities also assert that any capacity price impacts from electric storage resources would be de minimis.127
IPPNY answers that subsidized, uneconomic electric storage resources, no matter their size, can effectively artificially suppress Installed Capacity market prices, especially
when combined with many other small resources.128
iv.Data Request Response
69.In response to Commission staff’s Data Request, NYISO states that, because
Commission precedent requires all new entrants to be evaluated under NYISO’s BSM
rules, it proposes to restore the BSM rules to resources 2 MW or less.129 NYISO explains that under its currently effective BSM Rules, a resource 2 MW or less is not subject to mitigation and such resource would therefore not be “subject to mitigation automatically” if the Commission rejects NYISO’s proposal to reinstate Category III Examined
Facilities to the BSM Rules in this proceeding.
70. In response to Commission staff’s Data Request, NYISO states that it expects
Energy Storage Resources to recover all incremental costs, including opportunity
costs,130 when they are scheduled to operate.131 NYISO adds that any generator,
including an Energy Storage Resource, will be allowed to submit an Opportunity Cost
126 New York State Entities Answer at 5-6.
127 Id. at 7.
128 IPPNY Answer at 8.
129 NYISO Data Request Response at 22 (citing N.Y. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 153 FERC ¶ 61,022 (2015) (rejecting multiple proposed exemptions from the BSM Rules that had not been justified)).
130 According to NYISO, “opportunity cost is intended to reflect the revenue that
the Energy Storage Resource forgoes by deviating from the wholesale market schedule
that would result in the highest profits (“optimal schedule”) for a given day-ahead or real-
time market interval. Opportunity costs are anticipated to be the primary component of
an Energy Storage Resource’s marginal costs, and thus their Reference Levels.” Id. at 9.
131 Id.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 27 -
Adjustment132 with its day-ahead or real-time market bid, and an energy bid that includes
any claimed opportunity costs.133 Additionally, NYISO states that an Energy Storage
Resource can submit either an alternative calculation of its opportunity costs or an
entirely different type/category of opportunity cost for consideration.134 NYISO specifies
that it will determine whether the proposed alternate opportunity cost calculation or a
different cost type estimate is appropriate, and therefore whether the alternate estimate
should be included in the Energy Storage Resource’s reference level. NYISO argues that
the proposed market rules for developing opportunity costs “would permit an Energy
Storage Resource to demonstrate, and permit NYISO to consider and accept (where
appropriate) as a valid opportunity cost, the incremental cost increase that [a] co-located
and co-metered retail load will incur if its retail demand charge increases as a result of
[an Energy Storage Resource’s] wholesale market dispatch.”135
v.Comments on Data Request Response
71.NYISO MMU reiterates its support for NYISO’s proposed BSM Rules. The need
for BSM Rules, according to NYISO MMU, is driven by the large number of new
subsidized entrants that it expects to enter NYISO’s market, rather than by the size of
individual projects.136 NYISO MMU believes that reinstating the provision regarding
Category III Examined Facilities, as NYISO proposes, will provide a path for small
resources to obtain an exemption in a way that is comparable to other resources, rather
than automatically subjecting small resources in mitigated capacity zones to an offer
floor.137 NYISO MMU explains that it expects many new Energy Storage Resources to
be exempted from BSM Rules under one of the existing BSM exemption tests.138
132 NYISO maintains that incorporating an accurate Opportunity Cost Adjustment
into the reference levels will prevent over-mitigation and enhance price formation. Id.
at 10.
133 Id. at 9.
134 NYISO states that “Market Participants continue to have the option to consult with the NYISO, on a case-by-case basis, to demonstrate valid opportunity costs to be included in reference levels.” Id. at 13 n.27.
135 Id. at 13.
136 NYISO MMU May 22, 2019 Comments at 3.
137 Id.
138 NYISO MMU February 25, 2019 Comments at 4.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 28 -
72. IPPNY states that, while it reiterates its support for NYISO’s proposed BSM
Rules, it protests NYISO’s assertion that the currently effective BSM Rules do not apply
to resources 2 MW or less and that such resources should be subject to automatic offer
floor mitigation.139 IPPNY argues that NYISO’s interpretation is a violation of
Commission’s long-established precedent that all new resources in NYISO’s Mitigated
Capacity Zones should be subject to offer floor mitigation.140 Therefore, IPPNY urges
the Commission to require NYISO to clarify the existing BSM Rules by incorporating
resources 2 MW or less within the Category III Examined Facilities definition.141
vi.Commission Determination
73.We reject NYISO’s proposal to reinstate Category III Examined Facilities in its
BSM Rules because this proposal would apply to all new Generators that are 2 MW or
less and therefore is beyond the scope of this compliance proceeding. We agree with
NYTOs and other commenters that NYISO’s proposal is not rooted in an Order No. 841 compliance directive and therefore can only be properly proposed through an FPA
section 205 filing.142 Therefore, we do not rule on the merits of NYISO’s proposal to
reinstate Category III Examined Facilities in its BSM Rules or the question of whether
Generators 2 MW or less should be subject to the BSM Rules. We direct NYISO to file, within 60 days of the date of issuance of this order, a further compliance filing with
revisions to remove all tariff language related to reinstating Category III Examined
Facilities in proposed MST section 23.
74. We find that the remainder of NYISO’s proposed tariff revisions comply with the requirements of Order No. 841 because NYISO made the necessary modifications to its tariff to specify: (1) whether resources that qualify to use the participation model will participate in the NYISO markets through existing or new market participation
agreements; and (2) whether particular existing market rules apply to resources
participating under the electric storage resource participation model.
75. In response to Advanced Energy Economy, we agree that electric storage
resources participating in RTO/ISO markets under the participation model should be able to reflect relevant opportunity costs in their energy market offers and bids, similar to
139 IPPNY May 22, 2019 Protest at 3-4.
140 Id. at 13.
141 Id. at 14-15.
142 NYTOs February 7, 2019 Protest at 5. If NYISO wants to propose reinstating provisions concerning Category III Examined Facilities in its BSM Rules, NYISO may propose such revisions to its tariff through an FPA section 205 filing.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 29 -
other market participants, when appropriate. We find that NYISO’s existing rules allow Electric Storage Resources to do so, noting that determining whether a resource should be allowed to include opportunity costs in its energy market offers and bids and how such
opportunity costs may be calculated can be complex and case specific.143 NYISO’s
proposal appropriately allows Energy Storage Resources to include opportunity costs in
their energy market bids and offers. In addition, NYISO proposes a new process by
which market participants may seek revisions to reference levels to account for
appropriate opportunity costs in consultation with NYISO.144 Thus, we accept NYISO’s proposal on opportunity costs because NYISO explains how Energy Storage Resources
will be able to reflect relevant opportunity costs in their energy market offers and bids,
similar to other market participants, when appropriate.
3.Eligibility of Electric Storage Resources to Participate in the
RTO/ISO Markets
a.Eligibility to Provide all Capacity, Energy, and Ancillary
Services
76. Order No. 841 added section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(A) to the Commission’s regulations to
require that each RTO/ISO have tariff provisions allowing a resource using the
participation model for electric storage resources to be eligible to provide all capacity,
energy, and ancillary services that it is technically capable of providing, including
services that the RTOs/ISOs do not procure through an organized market, such as
blackstart, primary frequency response, and reactive power services.145 Where an
RTO/ISO has developed a standard set of technical requirements that all resources must
143 For example, for electric storage resources to effectively self-manage their
State of Charge, RTOs’/ISOs’ electric storage resource participation models may need to allow electric storage resources to account for opportunity costs associated with services provided to another entity outside the RTO/ISO markets. See Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at PP 251, 256-57. Order No. 841 recognizes that some RTOs/ISOs facilitate
the participation of electric storage resources in the capacity market by relying on
opportunity costs in incremental energy offer reference levels. Order No. 841 requires
each RTO/ISO to demonstrate how such rules are applicable to resources using the
participation model. Id. P 101.
144 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 58; proposed Services Tariff, §23.3.1.4.1.3.
See also NYISO Manual 34, Reference Level Manual, January 2019, p. 9-10,
https://www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/2923301/rl_mnl.pdf/ae26885c-9f44-b0bb-
11ab-e09ac2431c69.
145 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at PP 76, 80.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 30 -
meet to provide a given service, such requirements would also apply to a resource using
the electric storage resource participation model if it wants to provide that service.146
77. A resource is “technically capable” of providing a service if the resource can meet
all of the technical, operational, and/or performance requirements that are necessary to
reliably provide that service, such as minimum run-times to provide energy, or the ability
to respond to automatic generation control to provide frequency regulation.147 The
Commission noted that it is not considering in this proceeding the requirements that
determine whether resources are technically capable of providing individual wholesale
services.148 To the extent that an RTO/ISO seeks to revise its tariff provisions setting
forth the technical requirements for providing any specific wholesale service, the
RTO/ISO may propose such revisions to its tariff through a separate FPA section 205
filing.149 Each individual electric storage resource must still meet the technical
requirements of providing any specific service, which would be determined by the
RTO/ISO on a case-by-case basis.150 In Order No. 841, the Commission encouraged
each RTO/ISO to consider whether any modifications or additions to the existing
technical requirements, testing protocols, or other qualification procedures are necessary
to facilitate the participation of electric storage resources in its markets.151
i.NYISO’s Filing
78.NYISO states that electric storage resources currently are eligible to participate in
NYISO-administered energy and ancillary services markets as Generators.152 NYISO
adds that electric storage resources currently may also participate in the NYISO’s Day-
Ahead Demand Response Program, Demand Side Ancillary Services Program, and
Emergency Demand Response Program as a component of a Demand Side Resource,
146 Id. P 77.
147 Id. P 78.
148 Id.
149 Id. P 78 n.106. 150 Id. P 79.
151 Id. P 81.
152 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 6.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 31 -
such that the electric storage resource helps reduce the Demand Side Resource’s load at NYISO’s direction.153
79. NYISO explains that, because an Energy Storage Resource is a type of Generator, the vast majority of NYISO’s bidding and scheduling constructs in the energy and
ancillary services markets will apply to Energy Storage Resources. However, NYISO proposes to modify its existing market rules to account for both the characteristics of
Energy Storage Resources and the directives of Order No. 841,154 and the particular
services that an individual Energy Storage Resource may provide will depend on its
ability to meet the revised market rules.155
80. NYISO states that an Energy Storage Resource may sell and purchase energy,
provide regulation service and operating reserves (i.e., spinning reserves and 30 minute
reserves) both when injecting energy (i.e., discharging) and withdrawing energy (i.e.,
charging), and may provide other ancillary services if it satisfies the applicable tariff
requirements.156 NYISO adds that the requirements for providing operating reserves are
set forth in Rate Schedule 4 of its Services Tariff.157 NYISO states that it procures
several different operating reserves products, including: (1) spinning reserve (also known
as 10-Minute synchronized reserve); (2) 10-Minute non-synchronized reserve; and
(3) 30-minute reserve (which includes both synchronized and non-synchronized components).158
81. NYISO also states that, as with other generators, an Energy Storage Resource
offering regulation service must register its qualified regulation capacity, provide
applicable response rates, offer in the ISO-Committed Flexible or Self-Committed
Flexible bid modes, specify that part of its capacity that is offered to provide regulation
service, and ensure that the resource can respond to six-second base point signals at all
times.159 NYISO states that it will award a regulation service schedule for an Energy
Storage Resource that is injecting in the same manner as other generators, based on the
153 Id.
154 Id. at 18.
155 Id.
156 Id. at 17.
157 Id. at 34.
158 Id.
159 Id. at 32.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 32 -
resource’s offered regulation capacity, the bid price for that capacity, and the bid price for regulation movement.160 NYISO adds that it will award a regulation service schedule for an Energy Storage Resource that is withdrawing energy based on the same bid
parameters used for resources that are injecting energy. With respect to operation,
NYISO indicates that it will cap regulation service schedules for all Energy Storage
Resources in real-time to respect the actual, real-time energy level it receives from the
resource via six-second telemetry.161
82. NYISO states that, in accordance with this existing practice, its proposal sets forth
a set of qualification and performance requirements for Energy Storage Resources that is
comparable to the existing requirements for other resource types participating in
NYISO’s Installed Capacity market.162 NYISO states that Energy Storage Resources can
set the capacity clearing price in the same manner as other Installed Capacity
Suppliers.163 Further, NYISO adds that, in order to participate as an Installed Capacity
Supplier, an Energy Storage Resource must satisfy all applicable qualification
requirements set forth in Section 5.12 of the Services Tariff and ISO Procedures, which
include offer-size,164 ISO-Managed Energy Level in its day-ahead market bids,165
Capacity Resource Interconnection Service (CRIS),166 minimum run-time,167 and
160 Id.
161 See Services Tariff, § 15.3.2.1(e); Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 32. 162 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 42.
163 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 142; Compliance Filing, Transmittal
at 42.
164 The minimum size requirement is discussed in P 19 of this order.
165 This requirement allows NYISO to control and optimize the scheduled energy injections as well as withdrawals associated with energy storage resource throughout the day. Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 43.
166 According to NYISO, “CRIS is interconnection service that allows a Developer to interconnect its facility to the New York State Transmission System or Distribution System in accordance with the NYISO Deliverability Interconnection standard, which allows participation in the NYISO’s Installed Capacity market to the extent of the
facility’s deliverable capacity.” Id. at 44 n.125.
167 Installed Capacity Supplier must be capable of running for a minimum of four
consecutive hours each day. NYISO explains that this requirement is consistent with the
existing qualification requirements for Energy Limited Resources and Special Case
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 33 -
Dependable Maximum Net Capability (DMNC) test.168 NYISO also proposes to modify Section 5.12.5.1 to include Energy Storage Resources in the existing provision that
requires other capacity resources to submit the necessary Generating Availability Data System data or Operating Data, which NYISO states will enable it to evaluate the
availability of the resource.169
83. NYISO states that an Installed Capacity Supplier must obtain CRIS in accordance
with NYISO’s interconnection process.170 NYISO explains that Attachments X and Z of
its OATT contain the procedures for processing interconnections of Large Facilities and
Small Generating Facilities, respectively. NYISO also explains that Attachment S of the
OATT contains the procedures for the Class Year Interconnection Facilities Study (Class
Year Study), in which a project must participate to obtain CRIS with limited
exceptions.171 NYISO states that it proposes revisions in these OATT attachments to address the CRIS and interconnection requirements applicable to Energy Storage
Resources.172
ii.Commission Determination
84.We find that NYISO’s proposed tariff revisions comply with the requirements of
Order No. 841 because they ensure that electric storage resources are eligible to provide
all capacity, energy, and ancillary services that they are technically capable of providing.
NYISO’s proposal sets forth qualification and performance requirements for Energy
Storage Resources that are comparable to the existing requirements for other resource
types participating in NYISO’s installed capacity market. We find that resources that
meet all technical, operational, and performance requirements (e.g., minimum run-time,
CRIS, six-second telemetry, ability to register a resource’s qualified regulation capacity,
Resources. Id. at 44; Services Tariff, §§ 5.12.11.3 and 5.12.11.1, respectively.
168 NYISO states that an energy storage resource participating in its Installed
Capacity market will be required to provide the results of a DMNC test or historical
production data to establish the maximum Installed Capacity for each Capability Period. NYISO states that it will work with its stakeholder to supplement the ISO Procedures to establish the DMNC test requirements for energy storage resources. Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 43-44.
169 Id. at 45.
170 Services Tariff, § 5.12.1; Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 44. 171 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 46.
172 Id.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 34 -
and provide applicable response rates for frequency regulation) will be eligible to
participate in NYISO-administered markets.
b.Ability to De-Rate Capacity to Meet Minimum Run-Time
Requirements
85. To implement section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(A) of the Commission’s regulations, Order No. 841 requires that each RTO/ISO have tariff provisions providing that resources using the participation model for electric storage resources can de-rate their capacity to meet minimum run-time requirements.173 Electric storage resources that participate in an
RTO/ISO capacity market are not exempt from meeting the performance metrics and criteria that apply to all other resources that participate in that market and are not exempt from any applicable penalties for non-performance.174
86. Order No. 841 states that an electric storage resource de-rating its capacity to
provide capacity or other services is not engaging in physical withholding if it is de-rating
to meet minimum run-time requirements. However, each RTO/ISO may request that its
market monitor verify whether an electric storage resource de-rated its capacity to meet a
minimum run-time requirement to ensure that such resource is not engaging in physical
withholding, as defined by the Commission.175 Additionally, to the extent that market
power concerns arise as a result of electric storage resources de-rating capacity to provide
capacity or other services, each RTO/ISO may consider whether it is appropriate to
update and/or apply existing market power mitigation processes to electric storage
resources to alleviate market power concerns.176 Further, electric storage resources may
provide services in RTO/ISO markets without de-rating so long as they meet the
requirements to provide the particular service that they seek to provide.177
87. Order No. 841 provides each RTO/ISO with flexibility to either use its existing
rules for must-offer quantities or to modify its existing rules as necessary to reflect the
physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources.178 However, if an
electric storage resource elects to de-rate its capacity, it must not de-rate its capacity
173 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 94.
174 Id. P 95.
175 Id. P 96.
176 Id. P 97.
177 Id. P 98.
178 Id. P 99.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 35 -
below any capacity obligations that it has assumed, such as any applicable must-offer
requirement. Also, the de-rated quantity should be based on the quantity of energy that
an electric storage resource can discharge continuously over the minimum run-time set by
the RTO/ISO.
88. Order No. 841 does not require RTOs/ISOs to make specific changes to minimum run-time or must-offer requirements associated with providing capacity.179 However,
each RTO/ISO must demonstrate on compliance that its market rules provide a means for electric storage resources to provide capacity, including how its capacity market rules are applicable to resources using the participation model.180 Where an RTO/ISO does not
have existing tariff provisions that enable electric storage resources to provide capacity, the RTO/ISO must propose such rules.181
i.NYISO’s Filing
89.NYISO states that it has revised its Installed Capacity market requirements to
allow Energy Storage Resources to spread their full capability over four hours to meet the
minimum four consecutive hour run time qualification requirement.182 NYISO explains
that it has incorporated this change by adding a new section, Section 5.12.1.13, to its
Services Tariff to provide that an Energy Storage Resource seeking to qualify as an
Installed Capacity Supplier must “be capable of running for a minimum of four (4)
consecutive hours each day” except when the resource is incapable of doing so because
of a reported outage.183 NYISO states that the four-hour minimum run-time is consistent
with NYISO’s existing qualification requirements for Energy Limited Resources and
Special Case Resources. NYISO also states that, consistent with Order No. 841, the
requirement that an Energy Storage Resource may spread its output across four hours to
meet the four-hour minimum run-time will be set forth in ISO Procedures.184 NYISO
states that it discussed potential de-rating concepts for Energy Storage Resources with its
stakeholders and will continue to work with them to finalize the concepts in the ISO
179 Id. P 100.
180 Id. PP 100, 101. 181 Id. P 100.
182 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 9.
183 See Services Tariff, § 5.12.1.13; Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 44. 184 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 44-45.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 36 -
Procedures.185 NYISO states that it will calculate the derating factor based on a
resource’s “availability and historic performance over a 17 month period.”186
90.As described above, NYISO explains that, under its proposed participation model,
an Energy Storage Resource may qualify as an Installed Capacity Supplier if it satisfies
the existing qualification requirements for a Generator as well as the Energy Storage
Resource-specific requirements set forth in Services Tariff Section 5.12.187
ii.Protests/Comments
91.Tesla states that it supports NYISO’s proposal to require that electric storage
resources have a four-hour minimum duration to participate in the Installed Capacity
market.188 Further, Tesla supports NYISO’s proposal to allow electric storage resources
to de-rate their installed capacity to meet the four-hour duration, noting that NYISO’s
proposal is similar to the existing run-time requirements for Installed Capacity Resources
and Special Case Resources in NYISO.189 Tesla also notes that a four-hour duration is a
reasonable duration requirement for electric storage resources providing capacity.190
92. Tesla recommends that RTOs/ISOs limit performance penalties to the physical
energy capacity in MWh committed to the capacity market by the electric storage
resource.191 Tesla argues that granting this treatment would ensure just and reasonable
185 See, e.g., Capacity Market Rules for Energy Storage Resources Presentation, NYISO Installed Capacity Working Group (September 21, 2018),
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/markets_operations/committees/bic_icapwg/meeti
ng_materials/2018-09-
21/3%20ESR%20Capacity%20Model%20Tariff%20092118%20presentation.pdf.
186 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 45.
187 Id. at 43-44.
188 Tesla Comments at 12-13.
189 Id.
190 Id. at 13.
191 Id. at 11-12.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 37 -
results from capacity markets by preventing undue discrimination against electric storage resources.192
93. New York State Entities state that the Commission should require NYISO to file
the methodology it uses to calculate the derating.193 According to New York State
Entities, if an electric storage resource elects not to bid in the real-time market because,
for instance, it intends to participate in the retail market for a given interval, the resource
would be deemed unavailable in the real-time market and its UCAP downgraded
accordingly, even if it has fulfilled its day-ahead bidding requirements.194 Further,
New York State Entities argue that NYISO’s proposed dispatchability requirement,
which requires Energy Storage Resources to be fully dispatchable and available within
their operating range, serves as a barrier to the ability of Energy Storage Resources to
manage their participation in retail markets.195 New York State Entities therefore request
that the Commission reject NYISO’s filing and direct NYISO to submit revised tariff
amendments to eliminate, to the extent practicable, barriers to the participation of electric
storage resources.196
iii.Commission Determination
94.We find that NYISO’s filing partially complies with the requirement of Order
No. 841 to allow electric storage resources to de-rate capacity to meet minimum run-time
requirements. We find that NYISO has demonstrated that its existing market rules
provide a means for Energy Storage Resources to provide capacity. As NYISO explains,
Energy Storage Resources will be able to spread their full capability over four hours to
meet the four-hour minimum run-time requirement. Additionally, NYISO demonstrates
how its capacity market rules are applicable to resources using the participation model.
95. However, as described above, NYISO indicates that the requirement that an
Energy Storage Resource may spread its output across four hours to meet the minimum
run-time requirement will be set forth in ISO Procedures. Order No. 841 requires that
each RTO/ISO have tariff provisions providing that resources using the participation
model for electric storage resources can de-rate their capacity to meet minimum run-time
192 Id. at 8-9.
193 New York State Entities Protest at 40. 194 Id. at 40-41.
195 Id. at 41-43.
196 Id. at 12.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 38 -
requirements.197 Given that NYISO has not provided tariff provisions allowing Energy
Storage Resources to de-rate their capacity to meet minimum run-time requirements, we
direct NYISO to submit, within 60 days of the date of issuance of this order, a further
compliance filing revising its tariff to provide such a process for Energy Storage
Resources.
96. In response to New York State Entities’ argument that an Energy Storage
Resource will be penalized for not adhering to its day-ahead schedule in the real-time
energy market, we find that this practice of derating Energy Storage Resources is
consistent with the derating practices that NYISO applies to other Generators in its
market. While NYISO’s dispatch-only model treats resources as always available,
Energy Storage Resources can manage their actual dispatch through bidding. If an
Energy Storage Resource wishes to manage its retail and wholesale obligations, as
suggested by New York State Entities, we find that it may do so through its bids. Having
found that NYISO’s proposed dispatch-only participation model complies with the
requirements of Order No. 841, we deny New York State Entities’ request to reject
NYISO’s filing.
97. In response to Tesla’s request that RTOs/ISOs limit performance penalties to the
physical capability that an electric storage resource commits for capacity service, we
reiterate that electric storage resources must still meet all of the technical, operational,
and/or performance requirements that are necessary to reliably provide a service and
Order No. 841 does not exempt an electric storage resource that is participating in
RTO/ISO capacity markets from any applicable penalties for non-performance.198
4.Participation in the RTO/ISO Markets as Supply and Demand
a.Eligibility to Participate as a Wholesale Seller and
Wholesale Buyer
98. Order No. 841 adds section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(B) to the Commission’s regulations to
require that each RTO/ISO have tariff provisions to ensure that a resource using the
participation model for electric storage resources can be dispatched and can set the
wholesale market clearing price as both a wholesale seller and wholesale buyer,
consistent with rules that govern the conditions under which a resource can set the
wholesale price.199 For a resource using the participation model for electric storage
197 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 94.
198 Id. PP 78, 95.
199 Id. P 142.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 39 -
resources to be able to set prices in the RTO/ISO markets as either a wholesale seller or a wholesale buyer, it must be available to the RTO/ISO as a dispatchable resource.200
99. Order No. 841 requires that: (1) resources using the participation model for
electric storage resources be able to set the price in the capacity markets, where
applicable; (2) RTOs/ISOs accept wholesale bids from resources using the participation
model for electric storage resources to buy energy, consistent with the rules related to
wholesale purchasers of energy in each RTO/ISO; and (3) resources using the
participation model for electric storage resources be allowed to participate in the
RTO/ISO markets as price takers, consistent with the existing rules for self-scheduled
resources.201 To ensure that electric storage resources are treated consistently with self-
scheduled load resources and traditional generation resources that participate in the
RTO/ISO markets, electric storage resources must be allowed to self-schedule when they
participate in the RTO/ISO markets as supply or demand, consistent with rules governing
how other resources self-schedule.202
100. While Order No. 841 does not require RTOs/ISOs to change any participation
models that they may already have that apply to pumped-hydro resources,203 it did
require each RTO/ISO to establish means by which all electric storage resources,
including pumped-hydro resources, can participate as wholesale sellers and wholesale
buyers in the RTO/ISO markets using a participation model.204 Lastly, Order No. 841
explains that the Commission does not consider electric storage resources in charging
mode to be negative demand response. Order No. 841 requires an electric storage
resource to be eligible to participate in the RTO/ISO markets as a wholesale buyer and
200 Order No. 841-A modifies section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(B) of the Commission’s regulations to clarify that, to the extent electric storage resources are dispatchable, the RTO/ISO is required to allow them to participate as dispatchable resources and to set the clearing price in the RTO/ISO markets as part of the participation model. Order No. 841-A clarified that not all electric storage resources that seek to use the electric storage resource participation model need to be dispatchable to use that participation model. Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at PP 74-77.
201 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 142. 202 Id. PP 144, 148.
203 See id. P 55.
204 Id. P 149.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 40 -
required each RTO/ISO to be able to dispatch them as such; such a mechanism would
entail participation in the energy markets, and not the provision of a new service.205
i.NYISO’s Filing
101. NYISO states that the bid of a Withdrawal-Eligible Generator, including an
Energy Storage Resource, to withdraw energy will be treated in the NYISO’s Day-Ahead
Security Constrained Unit Commitment (SCUC), Real-Time Commitment (RTC), and
Real-Time Dispatch (RTD) software as “negative generation,” rather than “Load.”206
NYISO adds that, consistent with the directives in Order No. 841, a withdrawing Energy
Storage Resource can be the marginal “Supplier” and will be eligible to set the wholesale
market clearing price.207 NYISO also states that several conforming changes to Service
Tariff Sections 4.1.6, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.4, 4.2.6, 4.4.1.2.1, and 4.4.1.4 clarify that Energy
Storage Resources can both sell energy as generation and purchase energy as “negative
generation,” and to distinguish Energy Storage Resource withdrawals from Load.208
102. Under NYISO’s proposal, four bidding modes are available to energy storage
resources (i.e., ISO-Committed Fixed, ISO-Committed Flexible, Self-Committed Fixed,
and Self-Committed Flexible) in order to bid in NYISO’s day-ahead and real-time
markets. ISO-Committed Fixed is a bidding mode in which a generator requests that
NYISO commit and schedule its resource in the day-ahead market. In the real-time
market, ISO-Committed Fixed mode allows a generator to request that NYISO schedule
its resource no more frequently than every 15 minutes. ISO-Committed Flexible is a
bidding mode in which a dispatchable generator or demand side resource is committed
and follows Base Point Signals issued by NYISO. These bidding modes require NYISO
to evaluate an Energy Storage Resource’s economic bids prior to scheduling.209 With
Self-Committed Fixed and Self-Committed Flexible bidding modes, an Energy Storage
Resource can self-schedule (or self-commit) its output regardless of the LBMP. These
bidding modes do not require commitment decision from NYISO prior to scheduling,
they follow NYISO’s dispatch instruction.210 NYISO also states that an Energy Storage
205 Id. P 150.
206 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 21.
207 Id.
208 Id. at 22.
209 Id. at 27 n.75.
210 Id. at 27-28.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 41 -
Resource that elects to use Self-Managed Energy Levels211 will be able to choose from
any of the four bidding modes in the day-ahead market. NYISO states that Energy
Storage Resources that bid with Self-Managed Energy Levels in the real-time market
may use the Self-Committed Fixed, Self-Committed Flexible, or ISO-Committed
Flexible bid.212
ii.Commission Determination
103. We find that NYISO’s proposed tariff revisions comply with the requirements of
Order No. 841 because they treat electric storage resources as dispatchable resources that
can bid and set wholesale prices. We also find that under NYISO’s proposal, electric
storage resources using the participation model are allowed to participate in NYISO’s
markets as a wholesale seller and wholesale buyer. Additionally, consistent with the
existing rules for self-scheduled resources, an Energy Storage Resource that elects to bid
with Self-Managed Energy Levels will be able to choose from either the Self-Committed
Fixed or Self-Committed Flexible bid modes in the day-ahead market in order to
participate in NYISO-administered markets as a price taker. Energy Storage Resources
that choose to bid with Self-Managed Energy Levels in the real-time market have the
option to use the Self-Committed Fixed, Self-Committed Flexible, or ISO-Committed
Flexible Bid.
b. Mechanism to Prevent Conflicting Dispatch Signals
104. To implement the new requirement in section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(B) of the
Commission’s regulations, Order No. 841 requires each RTO/ISO to either:
(1) demonstrate that its market design will not allow for conflicting supply offers and
demand bids from the same resource for the same market interval; or (2) modify its
market rules to prevent conflicting supply offers and demand bids from the same resource
for the same market interval.213 Order No. 841 does not require a specific approach to
prevent conflicting dispatch, but provided that the RTO/ISO is responsible for preventing
211 NYISO’s proposed Services Tariff defines Self-Managed Energy Level as “[a] Bid parameter which when selected indicates that an Energy Storage Resource’s Energy Level constraints will not be directly accounted for in the [NYISO] optimization.” See proposed Services Tariff, §§ 2.19, 4.2.1.3.4, 4.4.2.1. ISO-Managed Energy Level is defined as “[a] Bid parameter which when selected indicates that an Energy Storage Resource’s Energy Level constraints will be directly accounted for in the [NYISO]
optimization.” See proposed Services Tariff, §§ 2.9, 4.2.1.3.4.
212 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 28.
213 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 162.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 42 -
conflicting dispatch and therefore it would not be the responsibility of the market monitor to review bids to address conflicting dispatch.214 Order No. 841 also states that “while
each RTO/ISO should allow resources using the participation model for electric storage resources to participate as supply and demand simultaneously (i.e., submit bids to buy
and offers to sell during the same market interval), the RTOs/ISOs should not require
resources using the participation model for electric storage resources to participate as
supply and demand simultaneously.”215
i.NYISO’s Filing
105. NYISO states that it will permit Energy Storage Resources to submit an
incremental bid curve representing the entire range of the Energy Storage Resource’s
capability.216 NYISO explains that its modeling of each Energy Storage Resource as a
single resource in the wholesale market with a bid curve that represents the resource’s
entire operating range, from injection to withdrawal, will prevent the Energy Storage
Resource from being dispatched to withdraw and inject in the same market interval.217
NYISO states that new Section 4.2.1.3.1 of its Services Tariff establishes that the Energy
Storage Resource must submit a single, continuous bid curve in the day-ahead market.218
ii.Commission Determination
106. We find that NYISO’s proposed tariff revisions comply with the requirements of
Order No. 841 because electric storage resources using its participation model have the
flexibility to submit supply offers and demand bids in the same market interval, but
NYISO’s market design will not accept and dispatch conflicting supply offers and
demand bids from the same Energy Storage Resource for the same market interval. To
prevent its market design from dispatching conflicting supply offers and demand bids
from the same Energy Storage Resource for the same market interval, NYISO proposes
to treat an Energy Storage Resource as a single resource in the wholesale market with a
bid curve that represents the resource’s entire operating range from injection to
withdrawal. In addition, NYISO modifies its Services Tariff to require Energy Storage
Resources to submit a single, continuous bid curve in the day-ahead market.
214 Id. P 163.
215 Id. P 165.
216 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 9.
217 Id.
218 Id. at 23.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 43 -
c.Make-Whole Payments
107. Given the unique capability of electric storage resources to serve as both a supply of, and demand for, energy and to implement the new requirement in section
35.28(g)(9)(i)(B) of the Commission’s regulations, Order No. 841 requires that each
RTO/ISO have tariff provisions to ensure that resources available for manual dispatch as
a wholesale buyer and wholesale seller under the participation model for electric storage
resources are held harmless for manual dispatch by being eligible for make-whole
payments.219 Specifically, Order No. 841 requires that the participation model for
electric storage resources allows make-whole payments when a resource is dispatched as
load and the wholesale price is higher than the resource’s bid price and when it is
dispatched as supply and the wholesale price is lower than the resource’s offer price.
Any such make-whole payments must be consistent with the rules for make-whole
payments for other dispatchable resources, and such payments should only be provided to
resources using the participation model for electric storage resources to the extent that
such payments are already provided to other market participants.220 Order No. 841 does
not require a specific method for make-whole payments and provided the RTOs/ISOs
with flexibility to establish a methodology under which resources using the participation
model can receive make-whole payments.221
108. Order No. 841 also states that make-whole payments should only be available to
resources using the electric storage resource participation model if the system operator
dispatches that resource in a way that is inconsistent with its bids to buy and offers to sell
energy.222 Because one of the requirements of Order No. 841 is that each RTO/ISO have
the ability to dispatch electric storage resources as load, it is necessary for each RTO/ISO
to establish a methodology under which resources using the participation model for
electric storage resources that participate as load are able to receive make-whole
payments.223 Because electric storage resources must be able to be dispatched as load, their eligibility to receive make-whole payments when dispatched as load needs to be consistent with other dispatchable resources but does not need to be consistent with the eligibility of other load resources that are not dispatchable by the RTO/ISO.
219 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 174.
220 Id. P 177.
221 Id. P 174.
222 Id. P 178.
223 Id. P 179.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 44 -
i.NYISO’s Filing
109. NYISO’s make-whole payments consist of both Bid Production Cost Guarantee
(BPCG)224 payments and Day-Ahead Margin Assurance Payments (DAMAP).225
NYISO proposes that, consistent with the directives of Order No. 841, Energy Storage
Resources will be eligible to receive real-time BPCG payments when they are manually
committed for reliability reasons regardless of whether they select an ISO-managed or
self-managed bid mode.226 NYISO further adds that it has revised its BPCG and
DAMAP requirements to establish when electric storage facilities using the Energy
Storage Resource participation model will be eligible for make-whole payments.227
NYISO also states that, consistent with the existing eligibility requirements, an Energy
Storage Resource must be scheduled by NYISO, based on an ISO-Committed Fixed or
ISO-Committed Flexible Bid, in order to be eligible for a Day-Ahead BPCG payment.228
NYISO explains that because Self-Committed Resources’ schedules are not the result of
an economic evaluation, their costs are not protected through a Day-Ahead BPCG
payment.229 NYISO notes that Energy Storage Resources may be eligible for Day-Ahead
BPCG payments regardless of whether scheduled to inject energy or withdraw energy.230
110. NYISO states that several revisions to its Services Tariff establish the
circumstances in which Energy Storage Resources are eligible to receive Day-Ahead
224 A BPCG payment is the mechanism by which the NYISO guarantees that a qualifying Supplier will recover its as-bid costs over the applicable period if it is committed by the NYISO. See Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 37.
225 A DAMAP is “a supplemental payment to resources, as necessary, to recover
the difference between their accepted day-ahead offer price and the day-ahead locational
based marginal price when NYISO has directed that they reduce their real-time output
and such reduction has exposed them to balancing obligations that erode their day-ahead
margin.” See N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 139 FERC ¶ 61,108, at P 2 (2012). NYISO
states that DAMAPs protect Day-Ahead Margins that are lost when a Generator offers
flexibly in real-time and follows its real-time dispatch. See Compliance Filing,
Transmittal at 40.
226 Id. at 38.
227 Id. at 9.
228 Id. at 37.
229 Id.
230 Id. at 38.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 45 -
BPCG payments. NYISO explains that Section 18.2.1.1 of its Services Tariff provides
that an Energy Storage Resource is eligible to receive a Day-Ahead BPCG payment.231
NYISO also notes that it has revised the variables in the Day-Ahead BPCG formula in
Section 18.2.2.1 to clarify that Energy Storage Resources may be eligible for Day-Ahead
BPCG payments.232 NYISO lastly states that it has revised Section 4.6.6.1 of the
Services Tariff to clarify that BPCG payments are not limited to bids to inject energy.233
NYISO further adds that its proposed approach provides the Energy Storage Resource
with an incentive to self-manage its energy level in real-time if the resource operator
believes it can do so better than the NYISO’s Real-Time Market RTC and RTD
software.234
111. NYISO proposes to insert new formulas that account for real-time schedules to
inject energy and real-time schedules to withdraw energy into Sections 18.4.2 (for RTD
Intervals) and 18.5.2 (for Supplemental Event Intervals)235 of its Services Tariff.236
NYISO also proposes to revise several definitions currently included in Section 18.4.2 of
its Services Tariff.237 NYISO states that it has also revised intervals in Sections 4.6.6.3
and 4.6.6.4 of its Services Tariff to clarify that BPCG payments are not limited to bids to
inject energy.238 NYISO also proposes to make energy storage resources eligible for
DAMAP when they have been taken Out-of-Merit by NYISO or a transmission owner for
reliability reasons, regardless of whether they bid an ISO-managed or self-managed
energy level.239
231 Id. at 37.
232 Id. at 38.
233 Id.
234 Id. at 39.
235 A Supplemental Event Interval is defined as “[a]ny RTD interval in which there is a maximum generation pickup or a large event reserve pickup or which is one of the three RTD intervals following the termination of the maximum generation pickup or the large event reserve pickup.” NYISO Services Tariff, § 2.19, Definitions - S.
236 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 39.
237 Id.
238 Id.
239 Id. at 41.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 46 -
ii.Protests/Comments
112. NextEra and Energy Storage Association argue that NYISO’s proposal to exclude
electric storage resources from DAMAP is inconsistent with Order No. 841, which
requires that make-whole payments should be available to electric storage resources so
that they are held harmless for manual dispatch.240 Energy Storage Association asserts
that NYISO’s restriction of the ability of electric storage resources to receive DAMAP
and, in some cases, to receive BPCG payments is discriminatory and removes protection
against uneconomic schedules and dispatches from electric storage resources
participating in the NYISO-administered markets.241 Energy Storage Association points
to the Commission’s finding in Order No. 841 that make-whole payments should be
available to electric storage resources to protect against dispatch of supply when the
wholesale price is below the resource’s bid price or dispatch of load when the wholesale
price is above the resource’s bid price.242 Energy Storage Association concludes that
NYISO’s proposal to remove the protection of DAMAP for electric storage resources is
unjust and unreasonable because: (1) it raises the risk of unprotected uneconomic
dispatch; and (2) it results in different treatment of electric storage resources than that of
other generation resources.243
iii.Answers
113. NYISO states that suppliers bidding Energy Storage Resources into NYISO’s
energy markets will be eligible to receive make-whole payments, which consist of both
real-time BPCG and DAMAP, whenever they are either manually dispatched via a
Supplemental Resource Evaluation244 commitment or manually dispatched by NYISO
240 NextEra Protest at 5-6 (citing Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 174); Energy Storage Association Comments at 7.
241 Energy Storage Association Comments at 7.
242 Id. (citing Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 171 (“we find that the
participation model for electric storage resources must allow make-whole payments when a resource is dispatched as load and the wholesale price is higher than the resource’s bid price and when it is dispatched as supply and the wholesale price is lower than the
resource’s offer price.”)).
243 Id. at 8.
244 NYISO’s Services Tariff defines Supplemental Resource Evaluation as “[a]
determination of the least cost selection of additional Generators, which are to be
committed, to meet: (i) changed or local system conditions for the Dispatch Day that
may cause the day-ahead schedules for the Dispatch Day to be inadequate to meet the
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 47 -
Out-of-Merit to ensure New York Control Area or local reliability.245 NYISO states that,
consistent with its treatment of other resources, it will make Energy Storage Resources
whole to their bids through the Day-Ahead BPCG payments if they accrued a net loss
over the 24-hour Day-Ahead Market day.246 According to NYISO, Energy Storage
Resources that self-manage their energy level will be eligible for real-time BPCG
payments if they satisfy the eligibility requirements applicable to other resources.247
114. However, NYISO asserts that Energy Storage Resources will not be eligible to
receive real-time BPCG payments if they rely on NYISO to optimize their energy
level over the Real-Time Commitment and Dispatch optimization horizons (2.5 hour and
1 hour) because NYISO’s software for the real-time market will optimize the
ISO-Managed Energy Storage Resource’s Energy Level over the optimization windows
and dispatch the resource based on its available and expected energy level over that
window.248 NYISO also affirms that, given the shorter optimization windows (i.e.,
2.5 hours and 1 hour) compared to the daily timeframe for real-time BPCG payments, it is not reasonable to expect New York Control Area Loads to assume the risks associated with an ISO-Managed Energy Storage Resource being dispatched above or below its
Day-Ahead schedule.249
115. Energy Storage Association asserts that NYISO’s answer has not supported
NYISO’s argument that BPCG or DAMAP are inappropriate to be placed on “[New York
Control Area] Loads” as a result of inefficient dispatch by NYISO that does not cover the
as-bid costs of Energy Storage Resources, and that this is a subversion of the concept of
reliability requirements of the Transmission Owner’s local system or to meet Load or reliability requirements of the ISO; or (ii) forecast Load and reserve requirements over the six-day period that follows the Dispatch Day.” NYISO Services Tariff, § 2.19,
Definitions - S.
245 NYISO Answer at 16.
246 Id. (noting that its day-ahead market “selects the least cost mix of Ancillary
Services and Energy from Suppliers, Demand Side Resources, and Customers submitting Virtual Transaction Bids over the same 24-hour period protected by Day-Ahead BPCG
payments”).
247 Id. at 16-17.
248 Id. at 17.
249 Id.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 48 -
make-whole payments.250 Energy Storage Association explains that NYISO’s answer
hypothesizes that it would be possible under NYISO’s proposal for an Energy Storage
Resource operator to turn the operation of an Energy Storage Resource in the day-ahead
and real-time markets entirely over to NYISO and its optimization algorithms, yet still
end up not covering its as-bid costs with market revenues.251 Energy Storage Association
further states that NYISO’s assertion is unpersuasive and ignores that the markets are to
be structured such that a supplier will not be exposed to losses compared to its as-bid-
costs. Energy Storage Association notes that this issue may be exposing a more
fundamental problem with NYISO’s real-time market optimization structure, and, if so,
fixing the problem is beyond the scope of Order No. 841.252 Energy Storage Association
nonetheless reiterates that NYISO should not require operators of Energy Storage
Resources to bear the risk and cost of this shortcoming in NYISO’s market; instead,
NYISO should make Energy Storage Resources whole to their as-bid costs if those
resources submit to the NYISO management of State of Charge in the day-ahead and
real-time markets.253 Finally, Energy Storage Association contends that NYISO’s
proposal to require that Energy Storage Resources that are Installed Capacity Suppliers
use the ISO-Managed Energy Level would restrict the ability of these Energy Storage
Resources to receive DAMAP.254
iv.Commission Determination
116. We find that NYISO’s proposal complies with Order No. 841’s requirement that
electric storage resources committed by NYISO be eligible to receive make-whole
payments. As NYISO states, Energy Storage Resources dispatched manually out-of-
merit for reliability needs are eligible for real-time BPCG payments regardless of whether
they elect an ISO-Managed Energy Level or the Self-Managed Energy Level. We
disagree with Energy Storage Association’s argument that, in certain circumstances,
Energy Storage Resources that opt for an ISO-Managed Energy Level may be dispatched
in such a way that they could fail to recover their as bid costs and should therefore be
eligible for real-time BPCG payments because, as NYISO explains, an Energy Storage
Resource can successfully manage this risk by selecting to self-manage its Energy Level
in the real-time market. Moreover, we agree with NYISO that its proposal provides an
250 Energy Storage Association Answer at 7-8 (citing NYISO Answer at 17). 251 Id. at 8.
252 Id.
253 Id.
254 Id. at 8-9.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 49 -
incentive for resource operators to select a Self-Managed Energy Level in real-time if an Energy Storage Resource believes it can optimize its operations more efficiently than
NYISO’s real-time market software. We note that the compliance obligation described in our determination on State of Charge Management below255 requires NYISO to make the Electric Storage Resource the default manager of the resource’s State of Charge. This compliance obligation addresses Energy Storage Association’s concern that NYISO’s proposal to require that Energy Storage Resources that are Installed Capacity Suppliers use the ISO-Managed Energy Level would restrict the ability of these Energy Storage Resources to receive Day Ahead Margin Assurance Payments.
117. We also disagree with the argument that NYISO’s treatment of Energy Storage
Resources with respect to make-whole payments is unduly discriminatory. Under
NYISO’s dispatch-only model, Energy Storage Resources can submit bid curves that, if
the bid curves accurately reflect a resource’s costs, will allow the resource to avoid being
dispatched in a manner that would cause the resource to incur losses in real-time
operations during normal system conditions. We find that NYISO’s treatment of electric
storage resources, through the participation model, is consistent with its treatment of
other Generators.
5.Physical and Operational Characteristics of Electric Storage
Resources
118. Order No. 841 adds section 35.28(g)(9)(i)(C) to the Commission’s regulations to
require that each RTO/ISO have tariff provisions providing a participation model for
electric storage resources that accounts for the following physical and operational
characteristics of electric storage resources through bidding parameters or other means:
State of Charge, Maximum State of Charge, Minimum State of Charge, Maximum
Charge Limit, Minimum Charge Limit, Maximum Discharge Limit, Minimum Discharge
Limit, Maximum Charge Time, Minimum Charge Time, Maximum Run Time, Minimum
Run Time, Discharge Ramp Rate, and Charge Ramp Rate.256 Each RTO/ISO must
demonstrate how its proposed or existing tariff provisions account for each of these
specific physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources, which are
described further below. Order No. 841 provides that, to the extent that an RTO/ISO
proposes to comply with the requirement to account for any of the physical and
operational characteristics of electric storage resources enumerated herein through its
existing bidding parameters or other existing market mechanisms, it must demonstrate in
its compliance filing how its existing market rules already account for that particular
255 See infra P 175.
256 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 191.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 50 -
physical and operational characteristic.257 This requirement will improve the ability of
electric storage resources to provide all of the services that they are technically capable of providing and allow RTOs/ISOs to procure these services more efficiently, which will
enhance competition and, in turn, help to ensure that RTO/ISO markets produce just and reasonable rates.258
119. Order No. 841 does not require RTOs/ISOs to mandate that a resource
owner/operator submit any information, but instead, provided flexibility to each
RTO/ISO to determine whether resources using the participation model for electric
storage resources are required to submit information regarding their physical and
operational characteristics, or whether resources using the participation model should be
allowed to submit such information at their discretion.259 This flexibility may help
prevent resources using the participation model for electric storage resources from having
to submit information that is not applicable given their physical, operational, or
commercial circumstances. If an RTO/ISO adopts bidding parameters to account for the
physical and operational characteristics set forth in Order No. 841, as specified below, it
must permit a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources to
submit those bidding parameters in both the day-ahead and the real-time markets.260
120. Further, Order No. 841 allows each RTO/ISO to propose, in its compliance filing, bidding parameters or other means to account for physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources besides those set forth in Order No. 841.261 To the extent that an RTO/ISO includes such a proposal in its compliance filing, it must demonstrate that such bidding parameters or other mechanisms do not impose barriers to the
participation of electric storage resources in its markets.
121. Order No. 841-A clarifies that the requirement that each RTO/ISO establish tariff provisions providing a participation model for electric storage resources that accounts for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources through bidding parameters or other means allows for regional flexibility.262
257 Id. PP 211, 220, 229.
258 Id. PP 211, 220, 230. 259 Id. P 192.
260 Id. P 193.
261 Id. P 235.
262 Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at P 93.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 51 -
i.State of Charge
122. Order No. 841 provides that State of Charge represents the amount of energy
stored by an electric storage resource in proportion to the limit on the amount of energy
that it can store, typically expressed as a percentage.263 The State of Charge as a bidding
parameter is the level of energy that an electric storage resource is anticipated to have
available at the start of the market interval rather than the end. Order No. 841 provides
each RTO/ISO the flexibility to propose telemetry requirements for such resources in its
compliance filing and allows the RTOs/ISOs to implement the requirements of Order
No. 841 consistent with the telemetry requirements for different services and other market participants in each RTO/ISO.264
ii.Maximum State of Charge and Minimum State of
Charge
123. Maximum State of Charge represents the State of Charge that should not be
exceeded (i.e., gone above) when the electric storage resource is receiving electric energy from the grid.265 This value may either be a static value based on manufacturer
specifications or a dynamic value depending on the operational characteristics of the
resource (e.g., if it is providing multiple services and needs to reserve part of its State of Charge for another service).
124. Minimum State of Charge represents the State of Charge that should not be
exceeded (i.e., gone below) when an electric storage resource is injecting electric energy onto the grid.266 This value may be either a static value based on manufacturer
specifications or a dynamic value depending on the operational characteristics of the
resource (e.g., if it is providing multiple services and needs to reserve part of its State of Charge for another service).
iii.Maximum Charge Limit and Minimum Charge
Limit
125. The Maximum Charge Limit for a resource using the electric storage resource
participation model is the maximum MW quantity of electric energy that it can receive
263 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 213.
264 Id. P 214.
265 Id. P 215.
266 Id.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 52 -
from the grid.267 The Minimum Charge Limit represents the minimum MW level that the
resource can receive from the grid.268
iv.Maximum Discharge Limit and Minimum
Discharge Limit
126. The Maximum Discharge Limit is the maximum MW quantity that the resource can inject onto the grid.269 The Maximum Discharge Limit is analogous to, and could be represented by, the economic maximum that traditional generation resources can
generally submit with their offers. The Minimum Discharge Limit represents the
minimum MW output level that the resource can inject onto the grid.270
v. Maximum Charge Time and Minimum Charge
Time
127. The Maximum Charge Time represents the maximum duration that a resource
using the participation model for electric storage resources is able to be dispatched by the
RTO/ISO to receive electric energy from the grid (e.g., for four hours).271 If the
RTO/ISO is not managing the State of Charge of the electric storage resource in real
time, then the Maximum Charge Time will prevent it from dispatching the resource to
charge for a duration that would exceed the resource’s Maximum State of Charge.
128. The Minimum Charge Time represents the shortest duration that a resource using
the participation model for electric storage resources is able to be dispatched by the
RTO/ISO to receive electric energy from the grid.272 Minimum Charge Time is similar to
the Minimum Run Time for traditional generation resources but represents the minimum
time the resource can receive electric energy from the grid, rather than provide electric
energy to the grid.
267 Id. P 216.
268 Id. P 231.
269 Id. P 216.
270 Id. P 231.
271 Id. P 223.
272 Id. P 222.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 53 -
vi.Maximum Run Time and Minimum Run Time
129. The Maximum Run Time reflects the maximum amount of time that a resource
using the participation model for electric storage resources is able to inject electric energy to the grid due to physical or operational constraints, such as its State of Charge or
potential obligations to provide other services.273 The Minimum Run Time allows the resource to identify the minimum amount of time the resource is physically able to
discharge electric energy onto the grid.
vii. Discharge Ramp Rate and Charge Ramp Rate
130. The Discharge Ramp Rate represents the speed at which electric storage resources can move from zero output to full output, or Maximum Discharge Limit.274 The Charge Ramp Rate represents the speed at which electric storage resources can move from zero output to fully charging, or the resource’s Maximum Charge Limit.
viii. Additional Physical and Operational
Characteristics
131. Order No. 841 allows each RTO/ISO to propose in its compliance filing bidding parameters or other means to account for physical and operational characteristics of
electric storage resources in addition to those set forth in Order No. 841.275 If an
RTO/ISO includes such a proposal in its compliance filing, the RTO/ISO must
demonstrate that such bidding parameters or other mechanisms do not impose barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in its markets.
a.NYISO’s Filing
132. NYISO proposes to add to its Services Tariff the new parameters “Energy Level”
and “Beginning Energy Level,” which it states are equivalent to the term State of Charge
used in Order No. 841.276 NYISO proposes to define: (1) Energy Level as “[t]he amount
of Energy stored in an Energy Storage Resource”;277 and (2) Beginning Energy Level as
“the total amount of Energy stored by the [Energy Storage] Resource at the beginning of
273 Id. P 224.
274 Id. P 234.
275 Id. P 235.
276 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 24.
277 Id.; proposed definitions in Services Tariff, § 2.5
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 54 -
a market interval.”278 Under NYISO’s proposal, electric storage resources will have the
option to either self-manage their energy level (i.e., State of Charge)279 or have it be
managed by NYISO.280 The mode of Energy Level Management is the method by which
the Energy Storage Resource chooses to control the amount of energy stored.281 An
Energy Storage Resource must submit its Beginning Energy Level, as part of its Day-
Ahead Market Bids, which is determined by six-second telemetry in real-time.282
133. NYISO states that the new parameter “Upper Storage Limit” will serve as the
equivalent to the term Maximum State of Charge used in Order No. 841.283 NYISO
proposes to define Upper Storage Limit as “[t]he maximum amount of Energy an Energy Storage Resource is physically capable of storing.”284 NYISO notes that this is a
parameter that would only apply to Energy Storage Resources.285
134. NYISO states that the new parameter “Lower Storage Limit” will serve as the
equivalent to the term Minimum State of Charge used in Order No. 841.286 NYISO
proposes to define Lower Storage Limit as “[t]he minimum amount of Energy an Energy Storage Resource is physically capable of storing.”287 NYISO notes that this is a
parameter that would only apply to Energy Storage Resources.288
278 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 30; proposed definitions in Services Tariff,
§ 2.2.
279 See supra note 213.
280 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 24. See supra note 213. 281 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 24.
282 Id. at 29-30.
283 Id. at 17.
284 Id.; proposed definitions in Services Tariff, § 2.21 285 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 16-17.
286 Id. at 17.
287 Id.; proposed definitions in Services Tariff, § 2.12 288 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 16-17.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 55 -
135. NYISO states that the new parameter “Lower Operating Limit” will serve as the
equivalent to the terms Maximum Charge Limit and Minimum Discharge Limit used in
Order No. 841.289 NYISO proposes to define Lower Operating Limit as “the maximum
amount of megawatts the Resource can consume from the grid, if it is bidding to
withdraw Energy, or the minimum amount of MW the Resource can supply the grid if it
is not bidding to withdraw Energy. The Lower Operating Limit of an ISO-Managed
Energy Storage Resource that is not bidding to withdraw energy shall not be set to less
than 0 MW.”290
136. NYISO describes the Lower Operating Limit as the minimum MW level at which the Energy Storage Resource is willing to operate. Upon registration, the Energy Storage Resource must provide the physical Lower Operating Limit of the resource. When
bidding, the Energy Storage Resource must supply a Lower Operating Limit value that is no less than the physical Lower Operating Limit. The Lower Operating Limit may be
used to represent either the Minimum Discharge Limit or the Maximum Charge Limit
and can be a negative number.291 NYISO also proposes to revise Section 4.2.1.3.3 of the Services Tariff to require that Withdrawal-Eligible Generators also specify the
Generator’s Lower Operating Limit for each hour.292
137. NYISO states that it will account for the Minimum Charge Limit and the
Maximum Discharge Limit in its tariff as the “Upper Operating Limit,” and that these
parameters are comparable.293 NYISO proposes to revise the definition of Normal Upper
Operating Limit in Section 2.14 of its Services Tariff to state that “Bids for Energy
Storage Resources may include a negative [Normal Upper Operating Limit] when the
Resource bids to withdraw Energy from the grid. The [Normal Upper Operating Limit]
for ISO-Managed Energy Storage Resources shall not be lower than 0 MW.”294
138. NYISO states that Maximum Charge Time and Minimum Charge Time are
commitment parameters that do not apply to NYISO’s dispatch-only model for Energy
Storage Resources because NYISO will not make commitment decisions for Energy
289 Id.
290 See proposed definitions in Services Tariff, § 2.12 291 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 16-17.
292 Id. at 29; proposed definitions in Services Tariff, § 4.2.1.3.3. 293 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 29.
294 Id. See proposed definitions in Services Tariff, § 2.14.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 56 -
Storage Resource.295 NYISO states that, because its Energy Storage Resource
participation model will only recognize when the resource is on or off, it will therefore
treat all energy storage resource as fully dispatchable within the operating range that the
market participant provides to the ISO.296 NYISO explains that this approach
significantly reduces the time required by its software to solve for unit commitment and
dispatch.297 As a result, NYISO states that it will not require the Energy Storage
Resource to provide information regarding maximum or minimum charge time because it
will not be making commitment decisions for the Energy Storage Resource.298 NYISO
proposes to use each Energy Storage Resource’s Beginning Energy Level and a new
parameter, Roundtrip Efficiency, to ensure that both day-ahead and real-time schedules
are feasible.299 NYISO also states that an Energy Storage Resource must submit its
Roundtrip Efficiency, which will be used to schedule resources that opt to be ISO-
Managed.300 NYISO asserts that including this parameter will provide for more accurate
accounting of an Energy Storage Resource’s Energy Level throughout the scheduling
horizon.301
139. NYISO states that Maximum Run Time and Minimum Run Time are commitment parameters that do not apply to NYISO’s dispatch-only model for Energy Storage
Resources.302
140. NYISO states that it will account for the Discharge Ramp Rate and the Charge
Ramp Rate through its current tariff references to “response rates,” which represent how
quickly an Energy Storage Resource can respond to NYISO’s dispatch instructions under
various operating conditions.303 NYISO’s Services Tariff requires that bids supplying
295 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 16.
296 Id. at 20.
297 Id.
298 Id.
299 Id. at 10. Roundtrip Efficiency is the ratio of energy injections to energy
withdrawals for an energy storage resource. See proposed Services Tariff, § 2.18.
300 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 30; Services Tariff, § 2.18. 301 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 30.
302 Id. at 16.
303 Id. at 17; Services Tariff, § 4.2.1.3.3.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 57 -
energy and ancillary services must specify a normal response rate and may provide up to three normal response rates provided that the minimum normal response rate may be no less than 1 percent of the generator’s operating capacity per minute.304
b.Protests/Comments
141. Energy Storage Association asserts that NYISO’s proposal does not allow
resource operators to sufficiently represent their state of charge as a bidding parameter,
which Energy Storage Association believes is contrary to Order No. 841.305 Energy
Storage Association contends that Energy Storage Resource operators will be unable to
submit a “Beginning Energy Level” parameter as part of their real-time bids.306 Instead,
Energy Storage Association argues that this parameter will solely be determined by
NYISO through telemetry in real-time, conflicting with Order No. 841’s requirement that
electric storage resources be able to submit their state of charge for both day-ahead and
real-time energy markets.307 Energy Storage Association requests that the Commission
direct NYISO to revise its filing to include Beginning Energy Level as a biddable
parameter for electric storage resource operators in real-time because of the potential
value in having the option for telemetry that aids in estimating future state of charge.308
Lastly, Energy Storage Association requests that the Commission direct NYISO to ensure
through its stakeholder processes and implementations that other bidding parameters,
particularly those related to state of charge limits, are updateable in all bidding intervals
by market participants.309
142. New York State Entities state that NYISO’s proposal to require all Energy Storage
Resources to provide real-time operating data via telemetry in six-second intervals may
be overly broad for the services that Energy Storage Resources will provide, and overly-
broad telemetry requirements can be prohibitively expensive. Therefore, New York State
304 Services Tariff, § 4.2.1.3.3.
305 Energy Storage Association Protest at 11. 306 Id. at 11-12.
307 Energy Storage Association argues that this is problematic because, “[Energy Storage Resource] operators may have knowledge of circumstances that could change the estimated Beginning Energy Level between the time bids are submitted and the RealTime operating hour, and therefore could provide more accurate estimates than the
NYISO could ascertain through telemetry alone.” Id. at 12.
308 Id. at 11-12.
309 Id. at 13.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 58 -
Entities request that the Commission direct NYISO to include the necessary telemetry
requirements for Energy Storage Resources in its administrated markets so that Energy
Storage Resources are not confronted with cost-prohibitive telemetry requirements.310
143. Tesla requests that the Commission require RTOs/ISOs to allow electric storage resources to submit separate round-trip efficiency parameters for summer and winter, for purposes of market registration or offers, because round-trip efficiency can be highly
dependent on temperature and are sufficient for all uses, including planning processes and cost-based determination.311
144. Public Interest Organizations and Advanced Energy Economy argue that NYISO’s
failure to allow Energy Storage Resources to provide commitment parameters, while
permitting that option for other resources, is inconsistent with Order No. 841.312 Public
Interest Organizations specifically contend that this exposes Energy Storage Resources to
increased costs and risks, and the unequal treatment violates the FPA’s prohibition on
undue discrimination.313 Advanced Energy Economy emphasizes that NYISO’s proposal
does not appear to afford Energy Storage Resources sufficient ability to provide
information to NYISO on certain parameters, specifically Minimum Charge Time,
Maximum Charge Time, Minimum Run Time, and Maximum Run Time.314
c.Answer
145. NYISO states that its operating parameter requirements are necessary to ensure the
participation of Energy Storage Resources in its administered markets.315 NYISO states
that it examined Energy Storage Resources for both commitment and dispatch in
NYISO’s day-ahead and real-time Markets, but its software cannot ensure the
development of both day-ahead and real-time market solutions within a reasonable time
period when committing Energy Storage Resources. In response to Energy Storage
Association’s argument that Energy Storage Resources should be permitted to provide
310 New York State Entities Protest at 43.
311 Tesla Comments at 23.
312 Public Interest Organizations Protest at 22; Advanced Energy Economy Comments at 12.
313 Public Interest Organizations Protest at 22.
314 Advanced Energy Economy Comments at 12. 315 NYISO Answer at 9.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 59 -
the real-time Beginning Energy Level manually, rather via telemetry, NYISO believes
that real-time telemetered Energy Level data is the most accurate source of that data.316
146. With regard to New York State Entities’ question about whether NYISO’s sixsecond telemetry requirements are overbroad and reflect the actual data needed for the service provided, NYISO explains that its proposed telemetry requirements mirror the existing telemetry requirements applicable to all other generators participating in the NYISO’s energy and ancillary services markets and ensure data consistency across all resources.317 In response to Tesla, NYISO states that it does not prohibit resources from making seasonal changes to their registration parameters, subject to the resource
providing NYISO with advance notice of the proposed changes.318
147. NYISO argues that its proposed dispatch-only model, which does not commit Energy Storage Resources, does not require that Energy Storage Resources provide commitment-related information such as Minimum Run Time, Maximum Run Time, Minimum Charge Time, and Maximum Charge Time.319
d.Commission Determination
148. We find that NYISO complies with the requirement of Order No. 841 to account
for the State of Charge of electric storage resources using the participation model through
its new Energy Level and Beginning Energy Level bidding parameters. NYISO proposes
to define: (1) Energy Level as “[t]he amount of Energy stored in an Energy Storage
Resource”;320 and (2) Beginning Energy Level as “the total amount of Energy stored by
the [Energy Storage] Resource at the beginning of a market interval.”321 We find
316 Id. at 11.
317 Id.
318 Id. at 12.
319 Id. at 9 n.20 (citing Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 192 (stating that in
Order No. 841, the Commission provided flexibility concerning the information that an
energy storage resource was required to provide, noting that the flexibility “may help
resources using the participation model for electric storage resources from having to
submit information that is not applicable given their physical, operational, or commercial
circumstances.”)).
320 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 24. See proposed definitions in Services Tariff, § 2.5.
321 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 30; proposed definitions in Services Tariff,
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 60 -
NYISO’s proposal to incorporate an estimated Beginning Energy Level into day-ahead
market bids, as well as to evaluate Beginning Energy Levels in real-time through six-
second telemetry, sufficiently complies with Order No. 841. We also find it reasonable
that, if six-second telemetry is unavailable in real-time, NYISO will use the last valid
Energy Level modified to reflect subsequent schedules.322 We note that all bids will
require a Beginning Energy Level Bid, even if that constraint is not binding due to the
Energy Storage Resource electing to operate using the Self-Managed Energy Level mode.
149. We find that NYISO’s proposed tariff revisions comply with the requirement in Order No. 841 to account for the Maximum State of Charge of resources using the
participation model because Energy Storage Resources will use a new bidding parameter, “Upper Storage Limit” to account for the term “Maximum State of Charge” used in Order No. 841.323 NYISO defines Upper Storage Limit as “[t]he maximum amount of Energy an Energy Storage Resource is physically capable of storing.”324 The Upper Storage
Limit bidding parameter will be used by Energy Storage Resources as part of NYISO’s software in both the day-ahead and real-time markets.325
150. We are not persuaded by Public Interest Organizations’ and Advanced Energy
Economy’s arguments that NYISO must allow Energy Storage Resources to provide
commitment parameters to comply with Order No. 841. Having found that NYISO’s
proposed Energy Storage Resource participation model accounts for the physical and
operational characteristics of Energy Storage Resources in compliance with Order
No. 841, we find, as set forth below, that NYISO proposes reasonable parameters
necessary to implement its dispatch-only model.326
151. NYISO’s proposed tariff revisions comply with the requirement in Order No. 841
to account for the Minimum State of Charge of Energy Storage Resources using the
participation model because Energy Storage Resources will use the new bidding
parameter “Lower Storage Limit” to account for the term Minimum State of Charge used
§ 2.2.
322 See proposed definitions in Services Tariff, §§ 2.2, 4.2.1.3.4, 4.4.1.2.
323 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 17; proposed definitions in Services Tariff,
§ 2.21.
324 Id.
325 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 23; proposed revisions in Services Tariff, §§ 4.4.1.2, 4.2.1.3.4.
326 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 19.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 61 -
in Order No. 841.327 NYISO proposes to define Lower Storage Limit as, “The minimum amount of Energy an Energy Storage Resource is physically capable of storing.”328 The Lower Storage Limit bidding parameter will be used by Energy Storage Resources as part of the NYISO’s software in both the day-ahead and real-time markets.329
152. We also find that NYISO’s proposed tariff revisions comply with the Order
No. 841 requirement to account for the Maximum Charge Limit and Minimum Discharge
Limit of Energy Storage Resources using the participation model because Energy Storage
Resources will use a new bidding parameter, “Lower Operating Limit” to account for
the terms, “Maximum Charge Limit” and “Minimum Discharge Limit” used in Order
No. 841.330 NYISO proposes to define Lower Operating Limit as “the maximum amount
of megawatts the Resource can consume from the grid, if it is bidding to withdraw
Energy, or the minimum amount of MW the Resource can supply the grid if it is not
bidding to withdraw energy. The Lower Operating Limit of an ISO-Managed Energy
Storage Resource that is not bidding to withdraw Energy shall not be set to less than
0 MW.”331 The Lower Operating Limit bidding parameter will be used by Energy
Storage Resources as part of the NYISO’s software in both the day-ahead and real-time markets.332
153. We find that NYISO’s proposed tariff revisions comply with the requirement to
account for the Minimum Charge Limit and Maximum Discharge Limit of Energy
Storage Resources using the participation model because Energy Storage Resources will
use the revised bidding parameter, “Upper Operating Limit” to account for the terms,
“Minimum Charge Limit” and “Maximum Discharge Limit” used in Order No. 841.333
NYISO proposes to revise the definition of Normal Upper Operating Limit in
Section 2.14 of its Services Tariff to state that “Bids for Energy Storage Resources may
include a negative [Normal Upper Operating Limit ] when the Resource bids to withdraw
Energy from the grid. The [Normal Upper Operating Limit] for ISO-Managed Energy
327 Id. at 17.
328 Id.; proposed definitions in Services Tariff, § 2.12.
329 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 23; proposed revisions in Services Tariff, §§ 4.4.1.2, 4.2.1.3.4.
330 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 16-17.
331 See proposed definitions in Services Tariff, § 2.12. 332 See id., §§ 4.2.1.3.3, 4.4.1.2.
333 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 16.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 62 -
Storage Resources shall not be lower than 0 MW.”334 Currently, Normal Upper
Operating Limit is a required bidding parameter for Generators in the day-ahead and realtime markets in NYISO, and this would be applicable to Energy Storage Resources as well because they are a subset of Generators.335
154. We find that NYISO’s proposal not to account for Maximum Charge Time,
Minimum Charge Time, Maximum Run Time, and Minimum Run Time through bidding parameters is acceptable because of the nature of NYISO’s proposed dispatch-only
participation model, which is incompatible with commitment parameters established by NYISO for Energy Storage Resources.336 As noted above, we find NYISO’s dispatchonly participation model complies with Order No. 841.
155. We find that NYISO’s proposed tariff revisions comply with the requirement in
Order No. 841 to account for the Discharge Ramp Rate and Charge Ramp Rate of
resources using the participation model because energy storage resources will use a
current bidding parameter—“response rates” —to account for these terms used in Order
No. 841.337 NYISO currently requires response rates to be submitted as a component of
bids in both the day-ahead and real-time market.338 NYISO proposes to require Energy
Storage Resources, as a subset of Generators, to submit response rates as a component of
their bids as well.339
156. We are not convinced by the New York State Entities’ argument that requiring
six-second interval telemetry is overly broad or prohibitively expensive. Order No. 841
notes that, “[t]o the extent that an RTO/ISO has developed a standard set of technical
requirements that all resources must meet to provide a given service, those requirements
would also apply to a resource using the electric storage resource participation model if it
wants to provide that service.”340 In that context, we find reasonable NYISO’s
334 Id. at 29; proposed definitions in Services Tariff, § 2.14.
335 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 16; proposed definitions in Services Tariff, §§ 2.14, 2.23, 4.2.1.3.3, 4.4.1.2.
336 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 16, 20. 337 Id. at 17.
338 Id. at 18; proposed revisions to Services Tariff, §§ 4.2.1.3.3, 4.4.1.2.1.
339 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 17-18; proposed definitions in Services Tariff, § 2.23.
340 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at PP 77.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 63 -
explanation that its proposed telemetry requirements mirror the existing telemetry
requirements applicable to all other generators participating in the NYISO’s energy and ancillary services markets.341
157. Further, we find NYISO’s clarification regarding the ability of resources to make
seasonal changes to their registration parameters, subject to the resource providing
NYISO with advance notice of the proposed changes, sufficiently addresses Tesla’s
concerns.342
6.State of Charge Management
158. Order No. 841 requires each RTO/ISO to allow resources using the participation
model for electric storage resources to self-manage their State of Charge.343 Order
No. 841 provides that a resource using the participation model for electric storage
resources that self-manages its State of Charge will be subject to any applicable penalties
for deviating from a dispatch schedule to the extent that the resource deviates from the
dispatch schedule in managing its State of Charge. Order No. 841 further provides that,
to the extent that the provision of a particular wholesale service, such as frequency
regulation, requires a resource providing that service to follow a dispatch signal that has
the effect of maintaining the resource’s ability to provide the service, an electric storage
resource that is managing its own State of Charge would still be required to follow such a
dispatch signal, just as all other resources providing that same service.
159. RTOs/ISOs are not required as part of Order No. 841 to manage the State of
Charge for resources using the participation model for electric storage resources.344
While RTOs/ISOs must permit resources to manage their own State of Charge,
RTOs/ISOs may provide an option for the RTO/ISO to manage an electric storage
resource’s State of Charge for any particular service or circumstance as they deem
appropriate in their markets with the consent of the electric storage resource.345 If an
RTO/ISO already has a mechanism to manage a resource’s State of Charge, then the
RTO/ISO must make it optional for the electric storage resource owner/operator to use
such mechanism so that the electric storage resource is able to manage its own State of
341 NYISO Answer at 11.
342 Id. at 12.
343 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 253. 344 Id. P 254.
345 Id. n.300.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 64 -
Charge if it elects to do so.346 Order No. 841 further provides that, where an electric
storage resource has the option to allow the RTO/ISO to manage its State of Charge, the electric storage resource is the default manager of the resource’s State of Charge.
160. Order No. 841 states that RTOs/ISOs should be able to dispatch resources using
the participation model for electric storage resources in the same manner as any other
market participant to address any reliability challenges and should know that the
resources have an adequate State of Charge to perform the service to which they have
committed.347 RTOs/ISOs are not precluded from establishing telemetry or other
communication requirements necessary to determine the capabilities of an electric storage
resource in real time. Self-managing electric storage resources, just like all market
participants, are subject to any non-performance penalties in the RTO/ISO tariff.
161. The Commission recognized that the energy limitations of electric storage
resources will need to be factored into their market offers and that misrepresenting those
limitations could constitute manipulation if an electric storage resource has an obligation
to participate in an RTO/ISO market. However, as discussed in the Ability to De-Rate
Capacity to Meet Minimum Run-Time Requirements section above, Order No. 841
requires each RTO/ISO to demonstrate how its existing market rules provide a means for
energy-limited resources, including electric storage resources, to provide capacity,
including ways to represent their energy limitations through their offer prices, which, if
allowed by the RTO/ISO, would not constitute economic withholding.348 As with other
resources, market monitors have the ability to review the bids from electric storage
resources to detect economic or physical withholding.349 If an RTO/ISO determines that
additional rules are needed to ensure electric storage resources are not managing their
State of Charge in a way that could manipulate market outcomes through withholding,
then the RTO/ISO may propose such rules in its compliance filing or through a separate
FPA section 205 filing.350
346 Id. P 254.
347 Id. P 255.
348 Id. P 256.
349 Id. P 257.
350 Id. (citing 16 U.S.C. § 824d).
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 65 -
a.NYISO’s Filing
162. NYISO states that its proposed tariff revisions provide an electric storage resource
with the option to choose its mode of Energy Level Management,351 which is equivalent
to the term State of Charge used in Order No. 841.352 NYISO explains that its proposed
tariff language requires an electric storage resource to indicate, in both its day-ahead bids
and real-time bids, whether the resource’s Energy Level will be Self-Managed or ISO-
Managed.353 NYISO explains that an Energy Storage Resource may change its Energy
Level Management election for different operating hours between the day-ahead and real-
time markets and within the real-time market day.354 However, NYISO will not allow
the resource to change its Energy Level Management election within a day-ahead market
day since a uniform election must be made for all hours of a day-ahead market evaluation
period.355
163. With respect to ISO-Managed bid mode, NYISO states that its market software
will evaluate an ISO-Managed Energy Storage Resource to inject or withdraw based on
the economics of the resource’s bids and its Energy Level constraints over the entire
optimization window that is being evaluated.356 NYISO also explains that its market
software will assess the intertemporal bid spread (i.e., the difference between an Energy
Storage Resource’s bids to inject and its bids to withdraw energy)357 over all intervals of
351 NYISO defines Energy Level Management as “[t]he method by which an
Energy Storage Resource controls the amount of Energy stored in the Resource. Energy Storage Resources may choose to be Self-Managed or ISO-Managed in their Bid.”
NYISO also proposes to define: (1) Energy Level as “[t]he amount of Energy stored in an Energy Storage Resource”; and (2) Beginning Energy Level as “the total amount of Energy stored by the Resource at the beginning of a market interval.” See proposed
definitions in Services Tariff, §§ 2.2, 2.5.
352 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 24 (citing Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 253).
353 See supra note 213.
354 See proposed Services Tariff, § 4.4.1.2. 355 Id., § 4.2.1.3.1.
356 NYISO notes that Energy Level constraints are intertemporal in nature; they link operations in one hour with operations in another hour. Compliance Filing,
Transmittal at 25.
357 An ISO-Managed energy storage resource may be scheduled to withdraw
energy during a non-economic market hour (e.g., when the day-ahead LBMP for a market
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 66 -
the applicable optimization period. NYISO states that Energy Storage Resources will
only be allowed to submit incremental energy bids, rather than spread bids, that include up to 11 distinct price steps.358 NYISO states that Energy Storage Resources that wish to participate as an Installed Capacity Supplier must use the ISO-Managed Energy Level in its day-ahead market bids.359
164. With respect to Self-Managed bid mode, NYISO states that it will not optimize the
Energy Level constraints for resources participating in this mode, since such resources
will be responsible for managing their own constraints through their self-committed bids,
which enable the resource to attain specific injection and withdrawal levels.360 NYISO
explains that, if a Self-Managed Energy Storage Resource fails to provide the quantity of
energy scheduled over an interval, then NYISO’s real-time dispatch software would
adjust the resource’s schedule to align with the resource’s Energy Level.361 According to
NYISO, this adjustment is done to minimize: (1) the likelihood of NYISO issuing
infeasible real-time schedules that the Energy Storage Resource cannot achieve; and
(2) the need to manually de-rate the resource when its bids are inconsistent with its
Energy Level.362 NYISO further states that, when an Energy Storage Resource’s real-
time telemetered Energy Level is unavailable because of equipment failure or other
reasons, it will use the last valid Energy Level value as modified to reflect subsequent
schedules.363
165. NYISO states that Energy Storage Resources are responsible for submitting real-
time operating data through telemetry in six-second increments.364 NYISO notes that this
hour is greater than the bid price to withdraw energy). Conversely, an ISO-Managed energy storage resource may be scheduled to inject energy when the day-ahead LBMP for a market hour is less than the bid price to inject energy. Id. at 26.
358 Id.
359 Proposed Services Tariff, § 5.12.1.13.
360 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 27; proposed Services Tariff, §§ 4.2.1.3.4,
4.4.1.2. See also NYISO Data Request Response at 14.
361 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 26.
362 Id. at 27.
363 Id.
364 See proposed Services Tariff, §4.4.2.1. Proposed Services Tariff, Section 3.5.2
provides that “Energy Storage Resources are required to provide a real-time Energy
Level signal to the NYISO in accordance with ISO Procedures.” Compliance Filing,
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 67 -
requirement will help maintain situational awareness and reliability of the grid.365
NYISO further states that real-time Energy Level information is necessary to ensure that schedules for Energy Storage Resources are feasible.366
b.Protests/Comments
166. Several commenters assert that NYISO’s proposed requirement that electric
storage resources that serve as Installed Capacity Suppliers must use ISO-Managed
Energy Levels in day-ahead market bids violates Order No. 841’s requirement that
Energy Storage Resources be able to self-manage their State of Charge.367 NextEra and
Energy Storage Association add that NYISO’s requirements on Energy Storage
Resources that are Installed Capacity Suppliers could have adverse implications for how
the Energy Storage Resources are managed in the real-time market, and that the day-
ahead schedule established by NYISO’s software could be burdensome for electric
storage resources that seek to self-manage their state of charge.368 Specifically, NextEra
argues that the day-ahead schedule established by NYISO’s software will create binding
market positions that will complicate real-time operations and optimization of electric
storage resources.369 Similarly, Energy Storage Association adds that, although it is
conceivable that Energy Storage Resources that receive day-ahead schedules could adjust
those schedules in real-time markets through buy-outs or other mechanisms, relying on
this possibility would be overly burdensome, subject Energy Storage Resources to undue
economic risk, and still hinder their ability to provide all services that they are technically
capable of providing in the day-ahead market.370 Energy Storage Association and Public
Interest Organizations therefore request that the Commission reject NYISO’s requirement
Transmittal at 55.
365 Id. at 28.
366 Id.
367 See, e.g., Energy Storage Association Comments at 5; NextEra Protest at 2; Public Interest Organizations Protest at 21.
368 NextEra Protest at 4; Energy Storage Association Comments at 5-6. 369 NextEra Protest at 4.
370 Energy Storage Association Comments at 5-6.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 68 -
to use ISO-Managed Energy Levels in the day-ahead market for electric storage resources participating in the installed capacity market.371
167. Public Interest Organizations further argue that NYISO’s requirement that Energy
Storage Resources that serve as Installed Capacity Suppliers allow NYISO to manage
their energy level in day-ahead market bids forces Energy Storage Resources to choose
between participating in the Installed Capacity market and engaging in State of Charge
self-management.372 Further, Public Interest Organizations state that while NYISO’s
provision for ISO-Managed Energy Level could help Energy Storage Resources if it were
optional, the manner in which NYISO has implemented its proposed mechanism falls
short.373
168. NextEra also argues that, under NYISO’s proposal, an electric storage resource
must be fully scheduled in the day-ahead market in order to provide Installed Capacity.
This requirement, according to NextEra, will create inefficient outcomes and will prohibit
the full potential of flexible deployment of electric storage resources.374 NextEra asserts
that this structure is unreasonable because it would discriminate against self-managed
electric storage resources with respect to their real-time availability and their ratings for
purposes of participation in the Installed Capacity market.375 NextEra concludes that
self-managed electric storage resources with valid offers for charging and discharging in
the NYISO’s real-time market should be considered just as ‘available’ as NYISO-
managed Energy Storage Resources when they are fully discharged.376
169. Tesla argues that energy neutral signals for the provision of frequency regulation
represent ISO-management of an electric storage resource’s State of Charge, and that
Order No. 841 expressly requires that each RTO/ISO allow electric storage resources to
self-manage their State of Charge.377 Tesla argues that electric storage resources should
have the option to self-manage their State of Charge when providing frequency
regulation, and be allowed to provide an asymmetric offer curve for regulation up and
371 Id.; Public Interest Organizations Protest at 24-25.
372 Public Interest Organizations Protest at 21. 373 Id. at 21-22.
374 NextEra Protest at 4. 375 Id. at 5.
376 Id. at 6.
377 Tesla Comments at 22.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 69 -
regulation down.378 Tesla explains that an electric storage resource that is fully charged
cannot offer its full capacity for frequency regulation with an energy neutral signal, but
that it could provide its full capacity if it were allowed to bid only regulation up.379
Likewise, Tesla explains that fully discharged electric storage resources cannot provide
frequency regulation based on an energy neutral signal, but could provide its full capacity
for regulation down service.380 Tesla states that it does not oppose the option to utilize
energy neutral signals for frequency regulation, but requests that the Commission require
the RTOs/ISOs to provide the option for electric storage resources to self-manage their
State of Charge during the provision of frequency regulation and allow electric storage
resources to submit asymmetrical offer curves for regulation up and regulation down
service.381
c.Answer
170. NYISO argues that its management of day-ahead market Energy Levels is
necessary to ensure efficient market outcomes and maintain system reliability.382 NYISO
requests that the Commission deny the protests because NYISO’s proposal will, among
other things, ensure comparable treatment of Energy Storage Resources with other
Installed Capacity Suppliers.383 NYISO states that Order No. 841 requires a resource
using the participation model to meet the technical requirements for any of the services
that it wants to provide and the Commission did not require NYISO to establish a new
process by which an electric storage resource could demonstrate that it was technically
capable.384 NYISO states that the Commission only encouraged an RTO/ISO to consider
whether modifications or additions are required to facilitate the participation of electric
storage resources in its markets.385 NYISO states that Energy Storage Resources,
because of their unique characteristics (i.e., duration limitations), cannot participate in
NYISO-administered markets in the same manner as conventional resources.
378 Id.
379 Id.
380 Id.
381 Id. at 23.
382 NYISO Answer at 5. 383 Id. at 5-6.
384 Id. at 6 (citing Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 81).
385 Id.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 70 -
Accordingly, NYISO proposed the ISO-Managed Energy Level bidding requirement for
the day-ahead market so that Energy Storage Resources can participate in the Installed
Capacity market.386 NYISO states that Energy Storage Resources participating in the
Installed Capacity market may still self-manage their State of Charge in the real-time
market.387 NYISO explains that because Energy Storage Resources are duration limited,
they may be awarded an infeasible day-ahead market schedule in the day-ahead market if
NYISO does not manage the resource’s state of charge.388 Therefore, NYISO requires
Energy Storage Resources participating in the Installed Capacity market to elect ISO-
Managed Energy Levels so that they can be evaluated in NYISO’s day-ahead market
software to maintain consistency between schedule and capability.389
d.Data Request Response
171. In response to Commission staff’s Data Request, NYISO further explains that it
will require an Energy Storage Resource participating as an Installed Capacity Supplier in
its administered Installed Capacity market to elect ISO-Managed Energy Levels in its
day-ahead market bids.390 NYISO asserts that Energy Storage Resources participating in
the Installed Capacity market may still self-manage their state of charge in the real-time
Market.391 NYISO further states that because of Energy Storage Resources’ unique
characteristics (e.g., they are duration limited and cannot supply energy for all hours),
they cannot be awarded a feasible day-ahead market schedule similar to conventional
resources that participate in the Installed Capacity market without ISO management of
their State of Charge.392 NYISO further adds that if it does not account for the duration
limitation in the day-ahead market economic evaluation, Energy Storage Resources may
frequently be required to buy-out of infeasible day-ahead schedules.393
386 Id. at 6.
387 Id.
388 Id.
389 Id. at 7-8.
390 NYISO Data Request Response at 29 (citing Proposed Services Tariff, § 5.12.1.13).
391 Id. at 29.
392 Id.
393 Id. at 30. NYISO also states that if after the day-ahead market closes an energy
storage resource becomes unavailable, NYISO may need, among other things, to commit
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 71 -
e.Commission Determination
172. We find that NYISO’s proposed tariff revisions partially comply with the
requirement of Order No. 841 to permit electric storage resources to self-manage their
State of Charge in both the day-ahead and real-time markets. In particular, NYISO
complies with Order No. 841 regarding self-management of State of Charge because
NYISO’s proposal provides Energy Storage Resources with the tools to self-manage
State of Charge in the day-ahead and real-time markets. However, we find that NYISO’s
proposal to require Energy Storage Resources that are Installed Capacity Suppliers to use
the ISO-Managed Energy Level in their day-ahead market bids does not comply with the
requirement in Order No. 841 “to allow resources using the participation model for
electric storage resources to self-manage their state of charge.”394 Order No. 841
explains that, where an electric storage resource has the option to allow the RTO/ISO to
manage its State of Charge, the electric storage resource must be the default manager of
the resource’s State of Charge. Thus, NYISO’s proposal to require an Installed Capacity
Supplier to use the ISO-Managed Energy Level in its day-ahead market bids conflicts
with the requirement in Order No. 841 to make the electric storage resource the default
manager of the resource’s State of Charge.
173. In the event that an Energy Storage Resource deviates from its day-ahead schedule
in order to self-manage its State of Charge, NYISO’s proposal would require an Installed
Capacity Supplier that cannot meet its day-ahead schedule to buy out of that position at
the real-time LBMP.395 This is consistent with Order No. 841’s statement that “a
resource using the participation model for electric storage resources that self-manages its
State of Charge will be subject to any applicable penalties for deviating from a dispatch
schedule to the extent that the resource deviates from the dispatch schedule in managing
its state of charge.”396 However, we disagree with NYISO’s argument that Energy
Storage Resources that are Installed Capacity Suppliers must use the ISO-Managed
Energy Level because it is not sufficient to rely on financial penalties and simply require
Energy Storage Resources to buy out of infeasible day-ahead schedules if the duration
limitation is not properly accounted for in the day-ahead market economic evaluation.397
and/or dispatch less efficient and more costly resources in real-time to maintain resource adequacy.
394 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 253. 395 NYISO Answer at 8.
396 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 253. 397 NYISO Answer at 8-9.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 72 -
We see no reason to believe that the requirement—that an Installed Capacity Supplier that cannot meet its day-ahead schedule must buy out of its position at the real-time LBMP—would be insufficient to ensure that an Energy Storage Resource serving as an Installed Capacity Supplier will meet its day-ahead schedule or opt to use the ISOManaged Energy Level in its day-ahead market bids.
174. In response to Tesla’s comments regarding resources providing frequency
regulation, we note that Order No. 841 addresses this issue by explaining that, to the
extent that the provision of a particular wholesale service, such as frequency regulation,
requires a resource providing that service to follow a dispatch signal that has the effect of
maintaining the resource’s ability to provide the service, an electric storage resource that
is managing its own state of charge would still be required to follow such a dispatch
signal, just as all other resources providing that same service.398 In addition, we disagree
that the Commission must require NYISO to allow electric storage resources to submit
asymmetrical offer curves for regulation up and regulation down service. This was not a
requirement in Order No. 841, and thus is outside the scope of this compliance
proceeding.
175. Accordingly, we direct NYISO to submit, within 60 days of the date of issuance of this order, a further compliance filing to remove the requirement that Energy Storage Resources that are Installed Capacity Suppliers must elect the ISO-Managed Energy
Level bidding parameter for each day-ahead market bid, and designate the Energy
Storage Resource as the default manager of the resource’s State of Charge.
7.Energy Used to Charge Electric Storage Resources
a.Price for Charging Energy
176. Order No. 841 adds section 35.28(g)(9)(ii) to the Commission’s regulations to
require that the sale of electric energy from the RTO/ISO markets to an electric storage
resource that the resource then resells back to those markets be at the wholesale LMP.399
This provision applies regardless of whether the electric storage resource is using the
electric storage resource participation model or participates in RTO/ISO markets through
other means, as long as the resource meets the definition of an electric storage resource
set forth in Order No. 841. An electric storage resource’s wholesale energy purchases
should take place at the applicable nodal LMP, and not the zonal price.400
398 Id.
399 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 294. 400 Id. P 296.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 73 -
177. The Commission found that, when an electric storage resource is charging to resell
energy at a later time, then its behavior is similar to other load-serving entities and
applicable transmission charges should apply.401 However, the Commission found that
electric storage resources should not be charged transmission charges when they are
dispatched by an RTO/ISO to provide a service (such as frequency regulation or a
downward ramping service).402 Order No. 841-A clarifies that the Commission’s use of
the phrase “applicable transmission charges” was intended to convey that an RTO/ISO
may propose to apply its existing rate structure for transmission charges to an electric
storage resource that is charging at wholesale but is not being dispatched by the RTO/ISO
to provide a service in the RTO/ISO markets.403 Order No. 841-A further clarifies that,
on compliance, each RTO/ISO may propose that any electric storage resource that is
charging for the purpose of participating in an RTO/ISO market but is not being
dispatched by the RTO/ISO to provide a service should be assessed charges consistent
with how the RTO/ISO assesses transmission charges to wholesale load under its existing
rate structure. Order No. 841-A also states that if an RTO/ISO proposes not to apply
transmission charges to an electric storage resource that is charging at wholesale but is
not being dispatched by the RTO/ISO to provide a service, then the RTO/ISO must
demonstrate that exempting such a resource from these charges is reasonable given its
existing rate structure for transmission charges.
178. With respect to the meaning of a “service,” Order No. 841-A acknowledges that
the participation of electric storage resources in RTO/ISO markets may convey a range of
benefits, particularly under certain system conditions, but declined to grant clarification
that charging pursuant to economic dispatch always qualifies as a service.404 However,
Order No. 841-A clarifies that services do not need to be limited to ancillary services and
that they can include any service defined in an RTO/ISO tariff. Order No. 841-A
explains that to the extent that an RTO/ISO seeks to create a new service that would
involve charging pursuant to economic dispatch under certain system conditions, the
401 Id. P 297. To the extent that load resources located at a single node pay
different transmission charges than load resources located across multiple nodes, each RTO/ISO must apply those transmission charges for single-node resources to electric storage resources that are located at a single pricing node, as long as they are not being dispatched to provide an ancillary service by an RTO/ISO.
402 Id. P 298.
403 Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at P 121. 404 Id. P 120.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 74 -
RTO/ISO may propose such revisions to its tariff through a separate FPA section 205
filing.
179. Order No. 841 does not require that electric storage resources purchase all electric
energy for future use from RTO/ISO markets, and did not address whether they can pay
some other rate, such as a retail rate, for charging of co-located generation.405 Regarding
electric storage resources’ use of the distribution system, the Commission found that it
may be appropriate, on a case-by-case basis, for distribution utilities to assess a wholesale
distribution charge to an electric utility participating in the RTO/ISO markets.406 Order
No. 841-A clarifies that the Commission will consider any proposal to establish a rate for
providing wholesale distribution service to an electric storage resource for its charging on
a case-by-case basis (e.g., a facility-specific rate, a wholesale distribution service rate that
applies to all or some subset of electric storage resources, a generally applicable
wholesale distribution service tariff, or any other rate mechanism).407
180. Additionally, the Commission found that efficiency losses are charging energy and therefore not a component of station power load. Thus, charging energy lost to
conversion inefficiencies should be settled at the LMP as long as those efficiency losses are an unavoidable component of the conversion, storage, and discharge process that is used to resell energy back to RTO/ISO markets and are not a component of what an
RTO/ISO considers onsite load.408 With respect to directly integrated and other ancillary loads, Order No. 841 provides RTOs/ISOs flexibility to determine whether they are a component of charging energy or a component of station power.
181. Order No. 841-A denies Pacific Gas and Electric’s request to clarify that states
have jurisdiction to determine how power flowing from the distribution grid into the
electric storage resource located behind the customer meter is split between retail
consumption and wholesale charging for later discharge into the wholesale markets.
Order No. 841-A further reiterates that the Commission’s finding regarding charging
energy did not address payment of the retail rate for energy and therefore Order No. 841 does not authorize electric storage resources to bypass retail rates for its on-site electricity consumption, as Pacific Gas & Electric suggested.409
405 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 299. 406 Id. P 301.
407 Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at P 123.
408 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 302.
409 Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at P 119 (citing Order No. 841, 162
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 75 -
i.NYISO’s Filing
182. NYISO proposes to revise the definition of station power to clarify that energy
withdrawals by Energy Storage Resources when that energy is stored for later injection
back onto the grid is not station power.410 NYISO states that this proposed clarification
is consistent with Order No. 841’s directive that energy withdrawn for later injection
back to the grid be settled at the applicable wholesale LBMP. NYISO states that Energy
Storage Resources will need to have adequate metering in place to separately account for
withdrawals for station power. Additionally, NYISO states that its day-ahead market
optimization will account for expected Roundtrip Efficiency losses of withdrawing and
storing energy from the grid at a later time.411 For example, NYISO explains that an
Energy Storage Resource with a Roundtrip Efficiency ratio of 0.85 will only inject
850 kW hours of energy for each MW of energy consumed. Therefore, this parameter
will allow NYISO to account for an Energy Storage Resource’s efficiency losses.
183. NYISO states that, as Energy Storage Resources are negative generation, Energy
Storage Resources are not responsible for transmission service charges associated with
energy withdrawals.412 NYISO explains that this treatment is consistent with the
treatment of other resources in the New York Control Area, and that the transmission
charges assessed to load are calculated at the zonal level, not at the individual generator
bus or nodal level. NYISO also argues that this is consistent with Order No. 841’s
directives.413
ii.Data Request Response
184. In response to Commission staff’s Data Request, NYISO responds that it treats
Energy Storage Resources’ bids to withdraw energy for later injection onto the grid as
negative generation rather than as withdrawals to serve load. Therefore, like other
conventional generators, Energy Storage Resources will only be assessed charges in
NYISO’s Services Tariff based on its injections, rather than as load based on its
withdrawals.414 NYISO asserts that since it does not calculate and assess charges to
FERC ¶ 61,127 at PP 323-324).
410 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 62. See Services Tariff, § 2.19. 411 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 26.
412 Id. at 22.
413 Id. at 22 n.52 (citing Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at PP 297-298).
414 NYISO Data Request Response at 31 (stating it also proposed “conforming
revisions to Service Tariff, §§ 4.1.6, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.4, 4.2.6, 4.4.1.2.1, and 4.4.1.4 to make
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 76 -
Generators based on their injections (or negative injections) at the individual Generator bus (or node), it will not assess transmission charges to Energy Storage Resources based on their injections or negative injections.415
185. In addition, NYISO states that its treatment of withdrawals by Energy Storage
Resources as negative generation for the purpose of modeling Energy Storage Resources
in its software does not complicate or prohibit accurate assessment of transmission
charges for withdrawals.416 NYISO further adds that by treating Energy Storage
Resources as negative generation for later injection, it will be able to keep such
transactions entirely separate in all of its settlement calculations from withdrawals to
serve load.417
iii.Commission Determination
186. We find that NYISO’s filing partially complies with the requirements of Order
No. 841 with respect to energy used to charge electric storage resources. In particular,
NYISO’s filing complies with Order No. 841 regarding the price Energy Storage
Resources pay for withdrawing energy from the grid, i.e., charging, because NYISO
proposes that sales of electric energy from the NYISO markets to an Energy Storage
Resource that the resource then resells back to those markets will be at the wholesale
LBMP. Also, NYISO’s proposal that Energy Storage Resources’ wholesale energy
purchases will be priced at the applicable nodal LBMP, and not the zonal price, complies
with Order No. 841. Additionally, NYISO’s proposal that efficiency losses constitute
charging energy and are settled at the LBMP complies with Order No. 841.
187. However, we find that NYISO’s proposal does not comply with the requirements
of Order No. 841 and the clarifications set forth in Order No. 841-A with respect to the
application of transmission charges to electric storage resources. NYISO argues that,
because Energy Storage Resources are negative generation, they are not responsible for
transmission service charges associated with energy withdrawals, and thus proposes to
exempt from transmission service charges both energy withdrawals used to charge an
Energy Storage Resource for later economic dispatch and energy withdrawals by an
clear that Energy Storage Resources can both sell Energy and purchase Energy as
“negative generation,” and to distinguish Energy Storage Resource withdrawals from Load.”).
415 Id. at 32.
416 Id.
417 Id.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 77 -
Energy Storage Resource to provide an ancillary service.418 We disagree with NYISO’s
assertion that, because transmission charges assessed to load are calculated at the zonal
level while the price of electric storage resource withdrawals is calculated at the nodal
level, it cannot assess transmission charges to electric storage resources when they
charge. In Order No. 841, the Commission found that the applicable transmission
charges that apply to load should apply to energy storage resources because when an
energy storage resource is charging to resell energy at a later time, its behavior is similar
to other load-serving entities. However, the Commission recognized that it may be
possible for different transmission charges to apply to load resources located at a single
node (such as pumped storage resources) that are paying a nodal price for energy and
load resources that are located across multiple loads (such as load serving-entities) that
are paying a zonal price for energy. To the extent that load resources located at a single
node pay different transmission charges than load located across multiple nodes, Order
No. 841 requires an RTO/ISO to apply the transmission charges of single-node load
resources to electric storage resources that are located at a single pricing node, unless
electric storage resources are being dispatched by an RTO/ISO to provide an ancillary
service.419
188. In Order No. 841-A, the Commission clarified that its use of the phrase
“applicable transmission charges” was intended to convey that: (1) an RTO/ISO may
propose to apply its existing rate structure for transmission charges to an electric storage
resource that is charging at wholesale but is not being dispatched by the RTO/ISO to
provide a service in the RTO/ISO markets; (2) any electric storage resource that is
charging for the purpose of participating in an RTO/ISO market but is not being
dispatched by the RTO/ISO to provide a service should be assessed charges consistent
with how the RTO/ISO assesses transmission charges to wholesale load under its existing
rate structure; and (3) if an RTO/ISO proposes not to apply transmission charges to an
electric storage resource that is charging at wholesale but is not being dispatched by the
RTO/ISO to provide a tariff-defined service, then the RTO/ISO must demonstrate that
exempting such a resource from these charges is reasonable given its existing rate
structure for transmission charges.420
189. NYISO does not meet these requirements because its proposal exempts Energy
Storage Resources that are charging for later resale from transmission charges that are
applicable to other load. We find that NYISO has not shown, as required in Order
No. 841-A, that its proposal is reasonable given how NYISO assesses transmission
418 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 22.
419 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 297.
420 Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at P 121.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 78 -
charges to wholesale load under NYISO’s existing rate structure. We, therefore, direct
NYISO to file, within 60 days of the date of issuance of this order, a further compliance
filing with tariff revisions that comply with this aspect of Order Nos. 841 and 841-A by
applying transmission charges to Energy Storage Resources when that resource is
charging for later resale in wholesale markets but is not being dispatched by the
RTO/ISO to provide a service and explaining how such charges would be calculated.
b. Metering and Accounting Practices for Charging Energy
190. To help implement the new requirement in section 35.28(g)(9)(ii) of the
Commission’s regulations,421 Order No. 841 requires each RTO/ISO to implement
metering and accounting practices as needed to address the complexities of implementing
the requirement that the sale of electric energy from RTO/ISO markets to an electric
storage resource that the resource then resells back to those markets be at the wholesale
LMP.422 Order No. 841 requires each RTO/ISO to directly meter electric storage
resources,423 but offered flexibility for each RTO/ISO to propose alternative approaches
that may not entail direct metering but nonetheless address the complexities of
implementing the requirement that the sale of electric energy from RTO/ISO markets to
an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to those markets be at the
wholesale LMP.424 Metering and accounting rules may need to differ based on whether
the resource is located on the transmission system, the distribution system, or behind the
meter.425
191. The Commission rejected the suggestion that electric storage resources must
choose to participate in either wholesale or retail markets due to the complexity of the
metering and accounting practices.426 The Commission found that it is possible for
electric storage resources that are selling retail services also to be technically capable of
providing wholesale services, and it would adversely affect competition in the RTO/ISO
markets if these technically capable resources were excluded from participation. In
421 See supra P 176.
422 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 322.
423 Order No. 841-A clarified that the RTO/ISO itself does not need to be the entity that directly meters electric storage resources. Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at P 138.
424 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 322. 425 Id. P 324.
426 Id. P 325.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 79 -
response to concerns that not requiring electric storage resources to choose to participate
exclusively in either wholesale or retail markets will allow resources using the
participation model for electric storage resources to evade the distribution utility’s retail
service or to simultaneously buy electricity at the retail rate and sell it at the wholesale
LMP, Order No. 841-A states that each RTO/ISO can address these issues by developing
its metering and accounting requirements in cooperation with the distribution utilities and
the Relevant Electric Retail Regulatory Authorities in its footprint.427 Order No. 841-A
also notes that, when the Commission found that the sale of electric energy from the
RTO/ISO markets to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to
those markets must be at the wholesale LMP, it was referring to the sale of energy from
the grid that is used to charge electric storage resources for later resale into the energy or
ancillary service markets.428
192. Order No. 841 also requires RTOs/ISOs to prevent electric storage resources from
paying twice for the same charging energy (i.e., they should not have to pay both the
wholesale and retail price for the same charging energy).429 To the extent that the host
distribution utility is unable—due to a lack of the necessary metering infrastructure and
accounting practices—or unwilling to net out any energy purchases associated with an
electric storage resource’s wholesale charging activities from the host customer’s retail
bill, the Commission found that RTOs/ISOs would be prevented from charging that
resource wholesale rates for the charging energy for which it is already paying retail
rates.430 Order No. 841-A clarifies that an RTO/ISO could require verification from the
host distribution utility that it is unable or unwilling to net wholesale demand from retail
settlement before the RTO/ISO ceases to settle an electric storage resource’s wholesale
demand at the wholesale LMP.431 Order No. 841-A clarifies further that the Commission
would consider on compliance each RTO’s/ISO’s proposal to identify whether a
distribution utility is unable or unwilling to net out from a host customer’s retail bill the
wholesale energy purchases associated with charging an electric storage resource that is
participating in the RTO/ISO market.
427 Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at 142 (citing Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 324).
428 Id. (citing Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 294).
429 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 326.
430 Id.; Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at P 127 & n.254. 431 Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at P 138.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 80 -
i.NYISO’s Filing
193. NYISO proposes to require all Energy Storage Resources to be directly metered,
including those Energy Storage Resources that are co-located with load.432 Energy
Storage Resources that are co-located with load behind a single end-use customer meter
will be required to be separately metered from the load.433 To account for the wholesale
load for a corresponding Load Serving Entity (LSE), NYISO will require the Meter
Authority for a load co-located with the directly metered Energy Storage Resource to
submit the full load for the appropriate LSE, without netting out the resource’s injections
and withdrawals.434 NYISO states that requiring direct metering will reduce the changes
necessary to the NYISO’s settlements software and ensure that all injections and
withdrawals of energy are settled at wholesale market LBMPs.435
194. NYISO states that it will establish as part of its registration requirements that an Energy Storage Resource is required to provide an attestation that it has sufficient
metering to identify only that energy that is withdrawn for later injection back onto the grid.436 NYISO states that the metering specifications and standards necessary for
Energy Storage Resources located in the ISO Procedures will be updated to include any specifications and standards necessary for Energy Storage Resources.437
195. NYISO states that it has discussed concerns regarding Energy Storage Resources
being forced to pay twice for the same charging energy with its New York transmission
owners and stakeholders, and understands that New York utilities do not intend to invoice
Energy Storage Resources for energy withdrawals for wholesale market participation.438
ii.Protests/Comments
196. Energy Storage Association argues that the Commission should reject NYISO’s metering requirement because it creates a de facto barrier to dual participation in
432 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 61.
433 Id.
434 Id. at 61-62.
435 Id. at 61.
436 Id. at 15.
437 Id. at 61; Services Tariff, § 13.
438 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 62.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 81 -
wholesale and retail markets and is a significant financial detriment to storage
resources.439 Energy Storage Association states that the Commission was clear in Order
No. 841 that metering and accounting practices should distinguish between wholesale and
retail activity, and not simply preclude retail activity, and therefore NYISO’s proposal
violates the mandates of Order No. 841.440 Energy Storage Association requests that the
Commission direct NYISO to develop plans to separate metering and accounting of
wholesale transactions from retail transactions, which do not create a de facto prohibition
on dual participation.441
197. Advanced Energy Economy states that NYISO’s filing fails to fully detail
metering and accounting practices that support the participation of Energy Storage
Resources located on the distribution system or behind the meter.442 Advanced Energy
Economy specifically takes issue with NYISO’s proposal that all Energy Storage
Resources be separately metered and have all energy that they use for charging and
discharging accounted for independently of the customer’s retail load. Advanced Energy
Economy asserts that these requirements will, in practice, prevent a resource that is
behind the meter from being used to provide wholesale services and on-side reductions in
retail load.443 Advanced Energy Economy asserts that NYISO’s proposal, which plans to
rely on distribution utilities to net out charging activity to ensure that an Energy Storage
Resource is not charged twice, does not comply with Order No. 841.444
198. Advanced Energy Economy also suggests that the Commission direct NYISO to
remedy these problems by implementing additional metering and/or accounting practices
that better account for energy injections and withdrawals used for wholesale and retail
purposes. As an example, Advanced Energy Economy advocates that NYISO should be
directed to develop more precise accounting procedures that ensure that, for directly-
metered behind-the-meter electric storage resources, the distribution utility only nets out
charging energy that is later injected onto the wholesale grid (and is thus a wholesale
439 Energy Storage Association Protest at 4.
440 Id. at 4 (citing Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at PP 318, 322, 325). 441 Id. at 5.
442 Advanced Energy Economy Comments at 7.
443 Id.
444 Id. at 9.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 82 -
sale), and that charging energy that is used to reduce on-site load is appropriately settled at retail.445
iii.Data Request Response
199. In response to Commission staff’s Data Request, NYISO affirms that direct
metering will enable it to separate the electric storage resource’s wholesale market
operations from any other obligations, and will settle Energy Storage Resources solely
for their wholesale transactions.446 Additionally, NYISO reiterates that it has worked
closely with all New York transmission owners to ensure that any wholesale withdrawals
by an electric storage resource for later injection will be excluded from retail withdrawals
to serve load for the corresponding LSE.447 NYISO also affirms that because it does not
have access to the retail invoices of individual New York State electricity consumers, it
cannot independently determine whether the energy withdrawn to charge an electric
storage resource has also been included on a facility’s retail invoice.448
iv.Commission Determination
200. We find that NYISO’s proposed tariff revisions partially comply with the
requirements of Order No. 841 pertaining to metering and accounting practices for
electric storage resources. As noted in its Data Request Response, NYISO affirms that its
proposed direct metering requirement will enable it to separate an Energy Storage
Resource’s wholesale market operations from any other obligations, and will ensure that
all injections and withdrawals of energy are settled (solely for their wholesale
transactions) at wholesale market LBMPs. NYISO also states that, because it does not
have access to the retail invoices of its individual New York State electric customers, it
would rely on New York transmission owners to ensure that wholesale withdrawals for
later injection will be excluded from retail withdrawals to serve load for the appropriate
LSE. However, we agree with commenters that NYISO has not adequately demonstrated
that the proposed metering and accounting practices will be sufficient to prevent double
payment for charging energy at the retail and wholesale levels. We, therefore, direct
445 Id. at 8-9.
446 NYISO Data Request Response at 20-21. NYISO states that Section 13 of the Services Tariff requires all of its customers to provide the meter data information
necessary (i.e., energy storage resources will be required to submit a set of data for
injections and another set of data for withdrawals) for NYISO to perform its functions and to fulfill its responsibilities under the Services Tariff.
447 Id. at 21.
448 Id.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 83 -
NYISO to file, within 60 days of the date of issuance of this order, a further compliance filing revising its tariff to state that NYISO will not charge distribution-connected electric storage resources for charging energy if the distribution utility is unwilling or unable to net out any energy purchases associated with an electric storage resource’s wholesale charging activities from the host customer’s retail bill.
201. Additionally, we find that NYISO’s tariff, rather than the ISO Procedures, must
include a basic description of NYISO’s metering methodology and accounting practices
for Energy Storage Resources, as well as references to the specific documents in the ISO
Procedures that contain the implementation details. Under the Commission’s precedent,
decisions regarding whether an item should be placed in a tariff or in a business practice
manual are guided by the Commission's rule of reason policy, under which provisions
that “significantly affect rates, terms, and conditions” of service, are readily susceptible
of specification, and are not generally understood in a contractual agreement must be
included in a tariff, while items better classified as implementation details may be
included only in the business practice manual.449 Although the majority of metering and
accounting principles pertaining to other types of resources are not specified in the tariff,
because of the unique physical and operational characteristics of electric storage
resources, the particular metering and accounting practices for such resources will ensure
that Energy Storage Resources are charged LBMP for charging energy and are not double
charged, as required by Order No. 841. We find that these practices significantly affect
rates, terms, and conditions and should be included in the tariff. Further, because Energy
Storage Resource market participants should be aware of the procedures that apply to
them in order to plan and manage their participation in the markets, we find that the tariff
should reference the specific documents in the ISO Procedures that contain the
implementation details for NYISO’s metering methodology and accounting practices for
Energy Storage Resources. Accordingly, we direct NYISO to file, within 60 days of the
date of issuance of this order, tariff revisions to include a basic description of NYISO’s
metering methodology and accounting practices for Energy Storage Resources, as well as
references to the specific documents in the ISO Procedures that contain the
implementation details.
c. Participation in Wholesale and Retail Markets
202. In Order No. 841, the Commission stated that it was not requiring that electric
storage resources purchase all electric energy for future use from the RTO/ISO markets,
and was not addressing whether such resources can pay some other rate for their charging
449 Energy Storage Assoc. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 162 FERC ¶ 61,296, at P 103 (2018).
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 84 -
energy, such as a retail rate or charging off of co-located generation.450 The Commission
further stated that it was not persuaded by commenters’ suggestion that electric storage
resources must choose to participate in either wholesale or retail markets due to the
complexity of the metering and accounting practices.451 The Commission found that it is
possible for electric storage resources that are selling retail services also to be technically
capable of providing wholesale services, and it would adversely affect competition in the
RTO/ISO markets if these technically capable resources were excluded from
participation.
203. In Order No. 841-A, the Commission denied rehearing of the decision to decline to require electric storage resources to choose to participate exclusively in either
wholesale or retail markets due to the complexity of the metering and accounting
practices.452 The Commission stated that, while it agreed with petitioners that
appropriate metering and accounting practices will be necessary to distinguish between
wholesale and retail activity, it disagreed that these practices would be prohibitively
complex or costly to develop and implement given the flexibility provided to the
RTOs/ISOs to propose reasonable approaches. The Commission explained that it chose not to prescribe particular metering and accounting practices that each RTO/ISO must
adopt, instead providing flexibility for each RTO/ISO to develop practices that reflect its unique market rules and its member utilities’ requirements for metering, billing systems, and other supporting software and IT platforms.453
i.NYISO’s Filing
204. NYISO contends that dual participation is outside the scope of Order No. 841, but
explains that it is exploring a dual participation concept as part of its aggregation market
design.454
ii.Protests/Comments
205. Commenters request that the Commission direct NYISO to submit a compliance
filing that would allow Energy Storage Resources to simultaneously provide wholesale
450 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 299.
451 Id. P 325.
452 Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at P 140. 453 Id. PP 140-41.
454 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 55.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 85 -
and retail services.455 Institute for Public Integrity contends that NYISO’s prohibition of dual participation for Energy Storage Resources would lead to unjust and unreasonable rates in violation of the FPA, and conflicts with the requirements of Order No. 841.
Institute for Public Integrity requests that the Commission require NYISO to facilitate dual participation in a separate FPA section 205 filing.456 Advanced Energy Economy argues that the ability of electric storage resources to participate in both wholesale and retail markets is not beyond the scope of Order No. 841.457 Advanced Energy Economy therefore requests that the Commission direct NYISO to address the ability of electric storage resources to provide both wholesale and retail services.
iii.Data Request Response
206. In response to Commission staff’s Data Request, NYISO explains that NYISO
stakeholders recently approved tariff changes to implement new market rules for
aggregations that outline dual participation requirements for all Generators, including
Energy Storage Resources, as well as for Distributed Energy Resources.458 NYISO states
that the new dual participation requirements will allow all Generators, including Energy
Storage Resources, located in the New York Control Area (NYCA) to simultaneously
participate in NYISO-administered markets and in programs or markets operated to meet
the needs of distribution systems located in the NYCA.459 NYISO states that it expects to
file tariff revisions concerning the new market rules for aggregations, including NYISO’s
proposed dual participation requirements, in the second quarter of 2019, and intends for
these dual participation requirements to be in place and available for Energy Storage
Resources by the time its Order No. 841 compliance filing here is implemented.460
455 See, e.g., EDF Renewables Protest at 2; New York State Entities Protest at 33-
38; Public Interest Organizations Protest at 15-21.
456 Institute for Public Integrity Comments at 6.
457 Advanced Energy Economy Comments at 9-10 (citing Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 325).
458 NYISO Data Request Response at 14-15. 459 Id. at 15.
460 Id. We note that NYISO filed these tariff revisions on June 27, 2019 in Docket No. ER19-2276-000. The revisions are currently pending before the Commission.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 86 -
iv.Commission Determination
207. We find that NYISO does not comply with Order No. 841 because its proposed
tariff revisions do not allow electric storage resources to use the electric storage resource
participation model if they also participate in retail markets. We disagree with NYISO
that the ability of electric storage resources to participate in both wholesale and retail
markets is beyond the scope of Order No. 841. In Order No. 841, the Commission stated
that it was not persuaded by commenters’ suggestion that electric storage resources must
choose to participate in either wholesale or retail markets due to the complexity of the
metering and accounting practices that would be necessary to distinguish between retail
and wholesale activity.461 The Commission found that electric storage resources that
provide retail services may also be technically capable of providing wholesale services,
and that excluding these resources from wholesale market participation would adversely
affect competition in RTO/ISO markets.462 Further, in Order No. 841-A, the
Commission denied rehearing of the decision to decline to require electric storage
resources to choose to participate exclusively in either wholesale or retail markets due to
the associated metering and accounting complexity.463 The Commission stated that,
while it agreed with petitioners that appropriate metering and accounting practices will be
necessary to distinguish between wholesale and retail activity, it disagreed that these
practices would be prohibitively complex or costly to develop and implement given the
flexibility provided to the RTOs/ISOs to propose reasonable approaches.464
208. However, we note that on June 27, 2019 in Docket No. ER19-2276-000, NYISO
submitted a proposal under FPA section 205 to allow participation by all resources in its
wholesale and retail markets. Those tariff revisions would establish new market rules for
aggregations of all Generators, including Energy Storage Resources, as well as
Distributed Energy Resources that allow participation by all resources in its wholesale
and retail markets. NYISO also requests that that proposal become effective as of May 1,
2020, to ensure that Energy Storage Resources will be able to make use of the provisions
once NYISO’s tariff revisions in compliance with Order No. 841 become effective on
NYISO’s proposed effective date of May 1, 2020. Therefore, we defer further action on
the Order No. 841 compliance directive to allow participation in wholesale and retail
461 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 325.
462 Id.
463 Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at P 140.
464 Id.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 87 -
markets until the Commission takes action on the merits of NYISO’s proposal filed in
Docket No. ER19-2276-000.
d.Participation of Behind the Meter Electric Storage
Resources in Wholesale Markets
209. In Order No. 841, the Commission revised section 35.28(b) of the Commission’s
regulations to define an electric storage resource as “a resource capable of receiving
electric energy from the grid and storing it for later injection of electric energy back to
the grid.” The Commission stated that this definition is intended to cover electric storage
resources capable of receiving electric energy from the grid and storing it for later
injection of electric energy back to the grid, regardless of their storage medium (e.g.,
batteries, flywheels, compressed air, and pumped-hydro). Additionally, the Commission
stated that electric storage resources located on the interstate transmission system, on a
distribution system, or behind the meter fall under this definition. The Commission
stated that, by including all electric storage technologies, and by allowing resources that
are interconnected to the transmission system, distribution system, or behind the meter to
use the participation model for electric storage resources, the Commission was ensuring
that the market rules will not be designed for any particular electric storage
technology.465
i.NYISO’s Filing
210. As described above, NYISO states that, consistent with its definition, electric storage facilities that are aggregated behind the same meter at the same point of
interconnection may qualify and participate as a single Energy Storage Resource in the NYISO-administered markets.466
ii.Protests/Comments
211. Advanced Energy Economy asserts that NYISO has not fully shown how its tariff
revisions will fully permit Energy Storage Resources on the distribution grid or behind
the meter to inject and withdraw energy and otherwise fully provide all of the wholesale
services that they are technically capable of providing.467 Advanced Energy Economy
states that Order No. 841 requires a clear path for electric storage resources located on the
distribution grid or behind the meter to be able to inject energy onto the wholesale grid
465 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 29.
466 NYISO Data Request Response at 2 n.8.
467 Advanced Energy Economy Comments at 4.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 88 -
(provided they are technically and contractually able to do so) and provide all wholesale services that they are technically capable of providing.468
212. Tesla urges the Commission to require that the RTOs and ISOs describe how
behind-the-meter electric storage resources are able to provide all services which they are
technically capable by injecting energy onto the grid and seamlessly transitioning
between serving onsite load and injecting energy onto the grid. Tesla states that if the
RTOs’/ISOs’ current or proposed rules do not provide this ability, the Commission
should require them to achieve those objectives in order to comply with Order No.
841.469 Tesla argues that NYISO’s proposal does not include a participation model that
would allow behind-the-meter energy storage to transition between serving onsite load
and injecting energy onto the grid, and that as a result of this restriction these behind-the-
meter storage resources will likely be unable to offer their full capacity into NYISO’s
markets.470 Tesla explains that the NYISO proposal would only allow behind-the-meter
Energy Storage Resources to participate either as a demand response resource by
adjusting onsite load, or, alternatively, as a generation resource that provides service only
by injecting energy onto the grid.471
213. Energy Storage Association states that NYISO, in its compliance filing, creates a
de-facto barrier to dual participation through its requirements that any Energy Storage
Resource located behind a customer meter be separately metered and have all energy
used for charging and discharging accounted for independent of the customer’s retail
load.472 Energy Storage Association explains its view that these requirements fail to
adhere to Order No. 841 because electric storage resources located behind a retail meter
will be precluded from earning revenues incurred by modifying load, such as by reducing
retail demand charges or shifting peak load based on retail time-of-use rates.473
468 Id.
469 Tesla Comments at 18. 470 Id. at 19.
471 Id. at 19-20.
472 Energy Storage Association Comments at 4 (citing Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 61).
473 Id. at 4.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 89 -
iii.Answers
214. NRECA filed an answer to Advanced Energy Economy’s and Tesla’s comments
arguing that the tariff provisions they seek are beyond the scope of the Order No. 841
compliance proceedings. According to NRECA, the compliance proceedings should not
become vehicles to restructure, unbundle, or otherwise federally regulate local
distribution facilities, local distribution services, or retail electric services, which NRECA
claims would be beyond the requirements of Order No. 841 and the Commission’s
statutory authority.474
215. In response to Advanced Energy Economy’s argument that Order No. 841
“requires a clear path” for electric storage resources on distribution systems or behind the
retail meter “to be able to inject energy onto the wholesale grid (provided they are
technically and contractually able to do so) and provide all wholesale services they are
technically capable of providing,”475 NRECA states that Order No. 841 never uses the
term “clear path” and instead requires each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to establish
market rules that “facilitate . . . participation” by electric storage resources and “remove
barriers” to such participation.476 According to NRECA, Order No. 841 is exclusively
addressed to RTOs/ISOs and does not require an RTO/ISO to adopt market rules that
clear a new path through non-RTO/ISO local distribution facilities, retail meters, or retail
electric regulation more generally.477
iv.Commission Determination
216. As to concerns regarding the ability of Energy Storage Resources located on the
distribution system or behind the meter to participate in NYISO’s markets, we reiterate
that NYISO’s definition of Energy Storage Resource is inclusive of those resources
located on a distribution system or behind the meter.478 As described above, we find that
NYISO has demonstrated that all Energy Storage Resources, including those located on
the distribution system or behind the meter, will be eligible to provide all capacity,
474 NRECA Answer at 2 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 824).
475 Advanced Energy Comments at 7.
476 NRECA Answer at 4 (citing Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at PP 1, 3, 19,
20).
477 Id. (citing Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at PP 19, 20; 18 C.F.R. §
35.28(g)(9)).
478 See supra P 24.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 90 -
energy, and ancillary services that they are technically capable of providing.479 With
respect to the concerns raised by Energy Storage Association, we do not believe that
requiring Energy Storage Resources to be separately metered presents a de-facto barrier
to participation in retail and wholesale electric markets. We note that NYISO’s instant
filing does not include details on NYISO’s metering methodology and accounting
practices for Energy Storage Resources located behind a customer meter, and as
discussed above, we find that NYISO’s tariff must include a basic description of
NYISO’s metering methodology and accounting practices.480 Further, we note our earlier
determination481 that defers further action on the Order No. 841 compliance directive to
allow participation in wholesale and retail markets until the Commission takes action on
the merits of NYISO’s proposal filed in Docket No. ER19-2276-000.
8.Effective Date
217. Order No. 841 requires each RTO/ISO to file tariff changes needed to implement the requirements of Order No. 841 within 270 days of its publication in the Federal
Register, and allowed a further 365 days from that date to implement the tariff
provisions.482 The Commission declined to allow the RTOs/ISOs to develop their own implementation schedules, finding that the compliance and implementation schedule set forth in Order No. 841 is appropriate.483 The Commission stated that the regional
flexibility allowed in Order No. 841 will assist the RTOs/ISOs in meeting the compliance and implementation deadlines.484 Order No. 841-A reiterates that Order No. 841’s
compliance and implementation schedule is reasonable, and declines to permit the
individual RTOs/ISOs to propose their own timeframes.485
a.NYISO’s Filing
218. NYISO’s proposed compliance tariff sheets do not include an effective date, but in
its transmittal letter, NYISO requests an effective date of no earlier than May 1, 2020 for
479 See supra P 43.
480 See supra P 201.
481 See supra P 208.
482 Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at P 348. 483 Id. P 349.
484 Id. P 350.
485 Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at P 154.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 91 -
the proposed tariff revisions. In support of this proposed effective date, NYISO explains
that the software and computer hardware necessary to implement the proposed tariff
revisions are undergoing a significant upgrade.486 NYISO explains that this upgrade is
the culmination of a 3-year process, and that the software systems related to
implementation of its proposed Energy Storage Resource participation model are being
coded consistent with its new, upgraded software and computer hardware systems.
219. NYISO proposes to submit an informational filing at least two weeks in advance of its intended effective date, specifying the date on which the tariff revisions submitted in this compliance filing will take effect. NYISO cites Commission precedent in which the Commission has found that such an informational filing has provided adequate notice to the Commission and market participants.487
220. NYISO also requests that the proposed tariff revisions concerning the
reinstatement of the Category III Examined Facilities under the BSM Rules become
effective one day after the Commission issues an order accepting them, unless the timing of the order is such that immediate effectiveness would disrupt NYISO’s administration of its Class Year process or the BSM Rules.488
b.Protests/Comments
221. Energy Storage Association argues that the Commission should reject NYISO’s
proposed effective date because it is six months later than the Commission’s required
implementation timeline.489 In addition, Energy Storage Association claims that
NYISO’s proposal of “no earlier” than May 1, 2020 is open-ended490 and would provide
Energy Storage Resources with as little as two weeks of notice before implementation.
Energy Storage Association claims that this is unreasonable and impractical.491
486 Compliance Filing, Transmittal at 64.
487 Id. at 65 (citing N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 106 FERC ¶ 61,111, at P 10
(2004); N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER11-2544-000, at 1 (Feb. 10, 2011)
(delegated order); N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER15-485-000, at 2 (Jan.
15, 2015) (delegated order); N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 151 FERC ¶ 61,057, at P 20
(2015)).
488 Id. at 65.
489 Energy Storage Association Protest at 13.
490 See also NextEra Protest at 7; Advanced Economy Energy Comments at 2. 491 Energy Storage Association Protest at 14.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 92 -
Furthermore, according to Energy Storage Association, delaying and predicating
implementation of Order No. 841 on a software upgrade that has already undergone
significant delays creates market uncertainty. NextEra argues that the Commission
should direct NYISO to expedite its efforts so it at least meets the new May 1, 2020
date.492 NYTOs state that they do not object to the short delay in implementation until
May 1, 2020, but they are concerned about the potential for further delays.493 NYTOs
state that they discussed their concern with NYISO and NYISO agreed to make an
informational filing no later than December 31, 2019, to advise stakeholders on the
completion date of the software upgrades.494 NYTOs state that if it becomes apparent that the software upgrades will not be deployed in the fourth quarter of 2019, then NYISO agreed to make an informational filing prior to December 31, 2019, in order to notify stakeholders of the delayed deployment.495
c.Commission Determination
222. While the Commission in Order Nos. 841 and 841-A declined to grant the
RTOs/ISOs additional time for implementation, we find here that NYISO’s request to
implement the requirements of Order No. 841 after the deadline established in Order
No. 841 is reasonable based on the specific circumstances outlined in its compliance
filing. We recognize that NYISO’s extensive software upgrade process has been
underway for several years and predates Order No. 841. NYISO states that it chose to
code the software necessary for implementation of its Energy Storage Resource
participation model consistent with this new suite of computer systems, rather than with
its existing systems. We find persuasive NYISO’s explanation that the upgrades it was
already undertaking prevent it from implementing its participation model before May 1,
2020. Therefore, we will not require NYISO to recode the software necessary to
implement its participation model so that it could run on its existing systems before
May 1, 2020.
223. However, we agree with Energy Storage Association that it is not reasonable to
allow NYISO to adopt an open-ended effective date of no earlier than May 1, 2020, with
an informational filing providing notice two weeks in advance. We believe NYISO’s
proposal inappropriately creates uncertainty for existing and prospective market
participants expecting to participate in NYISO’s markets under the Energy Storage
492 NextEra Protest at 7.
493 NYTOs February 7, 2019 Protest at 10. 494 Id. at 10-11.
495 Id. at 11.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 93 -
Resource participation model. Nearly a full year has elapsed since NYISO proposed this
effective date in its compliance filing. Consequently, we expect that NYISO has made
sufficient progress to implement its software upgrade. Therefore, we direct NYISO to
submit, within 60 days of the date of issuance of this order, a further compliance filing to
propose an effective date for its compliance filing that is no later than May 1, 2020.
The Commission orders:
(A) NYISO’s compliance filing is hereby accepted in part and rejected in part, subject to a further compliance filing, as discussed in the body of this order.
(B) NYISO is hereby directed to submit a further compliance filing, within
60 days of the date of issuance of this order, as discussed in the body of this order.
(C) As part of its further compliance filing, NYISO is hereby directed to
propose an effective date for its compliance filing that is no later than May 1, 2020, as discussed in the body of this order.
By the Commission. Commissioner McNamee is concurring with a separate
statement attached.
( S E A L )
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 94 -
Appendix A
Tariff Records Filed
New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
FERC FPA Electric Tariff
NYISO Tariffs
Docket No. ER19-467-000
NYISO OATT, 1.5 OATT Definitions - E, 13.0.0
NYISO OATT, 1.9 OATT Definitions - I, 14.0.0
NYISO OATT, 1.23 OATT Definitions - W, 3.0.0
NYISO OATT, 25.7 OATT Att S Cost Allocation Methodology for CRIS, 10.0.0
NYISO OATT, 25.8 OATT Att S Project Cost Allocation Decisions, 8.0.0
NYISO OATT, 30.3 OATT Att X Interconnection Requests, 11.0.0
NYISO OATT, 30.14 OATT Att X Appendices, 16.0.0
NYISO OATT, 32.5 OATT Att Z Appendices, 16.0.0
NYISO MST, 2.2 MST Definitions - B, 13.0.0
NYISO MST, 2.3 MST Definitions - C, 18.0.0
NYISO MST, 2.5 MST Definitions - E, 17.0.0
NYISO MST, 2.9 MST Definitions - I, 26.0.0
NYISO MST, 2.12 MST Definitions - L, 9.0.0
NYISO MST, 2.13 MST Definitions - M, 19.0.0
NYISO MST, 2.14 MST Definitions - N, 18.0.0
NYISO MST, 2.15 MST Definitions - O, 11.0.0
NYISO MST, 2.18 MST Definitions - R, 28.0.0
NYISO MST, 2.19 MST Definitions - S, 23.0.0
NYISO MST, 2.21 MST Definitions - U, 4.0.0
Docket No. ER19-467-000, et al.- 95 -
NYISO MST,2.23 MST Definitions - W, 4.0.0
NYISO MST,3.5 MST ISO Procedures, 5.0.0
NYISO MST,4.1 MST Market Services - General Rules, 13.0.0
NYISO MST,4.2 MST Day-Ahead Markets and Schedules, 17.0.0
NYISO MST,4.4 MST Real-Time Markets and Schedules, 32.0.0
NYISO MST,4.6 MST Payments, 5.0.0
NYISO MST,5.12 MST Requirements Applicable to Installed Capacity Suppl, 22.0.0
NYISO MST,15.3 MST Rate Schedule 3 - Payments for Regulation Service, 15.0.0
NYISO MST,15.3A MST Rate Schedule 3A - Charges Applicable to Suppliers, 8.0.0
NYISO MST,15.4 MST Rate Schedule 4 - Payments for Supplying Operating, 18.0.0
NYISO MST,17.1 MST Att B LBMP Calculation, 23.0.0
NYISO MST,18 MST Attachment C - Formulas For Determining Bid Production, 11.0.0
NYISO MST,23.1 MST Att H Purpose and Objectives, 1.0.0
NYISO MST,23.2 MST Att H Conduct Warranting Mitigation, 30.0.0
NYISO MST,23.3 MST Att H Criteria for Imposing Mitigation Measures (2), 17.0.0
NYISO MST,23.4-23.4.4 MST Att H Mitigation Measures, 46.0.0
NYISO MST,23.4.5 MST Installed Capacity Market Mitigation Measures, 25.0.0
NYISO MST,23.4.6-23.4.8 MST Virtual Bidding Measures, 2.0.0
NYISO MST,25 MST Attachment J - Determination Of Day-Ahead Margin Assu, 11.0.0
Docket No. ER19-467-002
NYISO MST, 2.5 MST Definitions - E, 18.0.0
NYISO MST, 15.4 MST Rate Schedule 4 - Payments for Supplying Operating, 20.0.0
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
New York Independent System Operator, Inc.Docket Nos. ER19-467-000
ER19-467-001
ER19-467-002
(Issued December 20, 2019)
McNAMEE, Commissioner, concurring:
I concur with today’s order insofar as it finds that New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. (NYISO) complies in part with Order Nos. 8411 and 841-A2 (together, the
Storage Orders) as issued and the Commission’s regulations.3 I write separately,
however, to express my continuing concern that the Commission exceeded its statutory
authority under the Federal Power Act,4 and should have, at the very least, provided
states the opportunity to opt-out of the participation model created by the Storage
Orders.5
On February 15, 2018,6 the Commission issued Order No. 841 to remove barriers
to the participation of electric energy storage resources (ESRs) in the capacity, energy,
and ancillary service markets operated by Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs)
1 Elec. Storage Participation in Mkts. Operated by Reg’l Transmission Orgs. &
Indep. Sys. Operators, Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 (2018) (Order No. 841).
2 Elec. Storage Participation in Mkts. Operated by Reg’l Transmission Orgs. &
Indep. Sys. Operators, Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 (2019) (Order No. 841-A).
3 18 C.F.R. §§ 35.28(b)(9), 35.28(g)(9) (2019).
4 16 U.S.C. §§ 791a-825r (2018).
5 See generally Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 (McNamee, Comm’r concurring in part and dissenting in part) (McNamee Separate Statement).
6 This order was later amended by an errata issued on February 28, 2018. Elec.
Storage Participation in Mkts. Operated by Reg’l Transmission Orgs. & Indep. Sys.
Operators, Docket Nos. RM16-23-000 and AD16-20-000, Errata Notice (Feb. 28, 2018).
Docket Nos. ER19-467-000 et al.- 2 -
and Independent System Operators (ISOs).7 In Order No. 841, the Commission denied requests to allow states to decide whether distribution-level ESRs or those resources
located behind a retail meter could participate in RTO or ISO markets.8 On rehearing, in Order No. 841-A, a majority of the Commission affirmed these findings and declined to provide the states with an opt-out.9
I was not a member of the Commission at the time Order No. 841 was issued, but I concurred in part and dissented in part when Order 841-A was issued. Specifically, I stated my support for ESRs and my belief that they have the potential to transform the electricity industry. But to the extent the Commission’s Storage Orders exercised
authority over the distribution system and behind-the-meter, I concluded:
[T]he majority has exceeded the Commission’s jurisdictional
authority by depriving the states of the ability to determine
whether distribution-level ESRs may use distribution
facilities so as to access the wholesale markets. By doing so,
in my view, the Commission claimed jurisdiction over
functions and assets reserved by statute to the states. Further,
even if the majority thought they could rightly exercise
jurisdiction in this matter, I think they should have furthered
the path of “cooperative federalism” by permitting the states
to choose whether or not behind-the-meter and distribution-
connected ESRs may participate in the wholesale markets
through an opt-out provision.10
Therefore, I concluded that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority in the Storage Orders and stated that I would have granted rehearing to reconsider the
Commission’s assertion of jurisdiction and its failure to provide states the opportunity to opt-out of the participation model created by the Storage Orders.11
7 See generally Order No. 841, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127.
8 Id. P 35.
9 Order No. 841-A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at PP 30-56.
10 McNamee Separate Statement, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 at P 3 (footnotes & citations omitted).
11 Id. PP 2-24.
Docket Nos. ER19-467-000 et al.- 3 -
While I approve NYISO’s compliance filing today to the extent it complies with the Commission’s Storage Orders, I note that the Storage Orders are presently pending judicial review,12 and I reiterate my concern with the Commission’s assertion of
jurisdiction over ESRs interconnecting either to a distribution system or behind-the-
meter. Further, I continue to believe the Commission should have included in the Storage Orders an opt-out provision for states.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
______________________________ Bernard L. McNamee
Commissioner
12 See Nat’l Ass’n of Regulatory Comm’rs v. FERC, Nos. 19-1142 and 19-1147 (D.C. Cir. filed July 11, 2019).
