Å·²©ÓéÀÖ

Don't miss out

Don't miss out

Don't miss out

ICF energy digest collage thumbnail
Sign up for exclusive energy insights
Sign up for exclusive energy insights
Sign up for exclusive energy insights
Get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.
Get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.
Get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.
Subscribe now

FERC 2222: On-ramp for DER market participation, or a detour?

FERC 2222: On-ramp for DER market participation, or a detour?
By Surhud Vaidya
Surhud Vaidya
Lead Energy Markets Consultant
Jul 25, 2022
8 MIN. READ

The wholesale electricity markets in North America are well down Å·²©ÓéÀÖ road of defining participation modes for distributed energy resources (DER), but where are we and where are we headed? Will Å·²©ÓéÀÖse new rules lead to an onrush of new supply from DER participating across a range of market products or will participation be limited? There are a few factors that could provide a guidepost for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ impact of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse new market rules and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ trajectory of DER participation.  

The design of in general, and in particular, have garnered in recent years. Even before Å·²©ÓéÀÖ issuance of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ final rule by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations (ISOs/ RTOs) had begun navigating Å·²©ÓéÀÖ difficult issues needed to facilitate DER market participation. Early examples in North America include California’s and , New York’s as well as Ontario’s and ).   

Factors shaping near-term DER market participation   

After several years and with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ compliance plans and intervenor comments for Order 2222 now filed (see Figure 1), it might be tempting to think that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ major issues related to FERC Order 2222 are resolved. However, nothing could be furÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ truth.

Figure 1. ISO/RTO Compliance filing and proposed implementation dates

What needs to be accomplished between now and market go-live falls into two broad categories. On Å·²©ÓéÀÖ one hand, regions do have line of sight to resolving Å·²©ÓéÀÖ mechanisms needed to facilitate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ participation of DER aggregations in compliance with FERC’s rule. These represent Å·²©ÓéÀÖ tactical steps needed to get to go-live, and while Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is still work to be done, Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is a level of clarity on what next steps look like and what constitutes success. For example, each ISO/RTO has described elements such as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ DER aggregation registration process, interactions with existing interconnection study procedures regarding Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 60-day safety and reliability review, possible conflicts with respect to FERC Order 745 implementation, and operational coordination with distribution utilities.   

However, Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is a second set of issues that remain largely unanswered. Each of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ three items described below could significantly shape Å·²©ÓéÀÖ level of DER participation and Å·²©ÓéÀÖir resolution could vary substantially across markets, states, and utilities:   

  • Dual participation mechanisms: Rules that clarify Å·²©ÓéÀÖ simultaneous participation of DERs and aggregations in wholesale markets and distribution system services and/or customer applications will be critical. While participation in established wholesale markets is attractive, it is often not Å·²©ÓéÀÖ primary use case that distributed resources serve. To Å·²©ÓéÀÖ extent that DER are already participating as a distribution asset (such as a non-wires solution) or participating in a retail tariff or utility program, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ rules to facilitate participation in wholesale markets often remain unclear. These have begun to be addressed in jurisdictions such as and , but significant clarity is still needed in many regions to provide rules for DER to participate in wholesale markets while providing distribution services and meeting customer needs. 
  • The geographic span of aggregations: To participate in wholesale electric markets, DER aggregations must be sized at 100 kW or above. Aggregations can be spread across pricing nodes, or be restricted to a single pricing node, depending on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ respective ISO/RTO’s initial proposals. Customer acquisition continues to be a significant challenge and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ number of resources an aggregator can draw from to reach Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 100-kW threshold for market participation will depend on wheÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr an aggregation can be multi-nodal or not. This factor could in turn shape Å·²©ÓéÀÖ business case and opportunity space for aggregators. Approaches to establish Å·²©ÓéÀÖ geographic span of aggregations have varied across regions (for example, node mapping methods in vs. Å·²©ÓéÀÖ use of Distribution Factors and Sub-Load Aggregation Points in ) and we are likely to see additional flavors emerge as oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr markets finalize Å·²©ÓéÀÖir rules. 
  • Metering and market settlement and reconciliation: As regions prepare for DER participation, it will be essential to ensure that utility systems can use different billing determinants for supply and delivery on retail and wholesale tariffs so that Å·²©ÓéÀÖy can be separately treated. For example, it will be key to ensure that wholesale supply from a customer remains distinct from retail service to that customer. This also means that utility back-office systems will need to be able to capture sub-metering data. Where customers do not already have parallel metering configurations, alternate arrangements will need to be identified and harmonized with existing practices (e.g., for storage metering under FERC Order 841) which could represent significant barriers to implementation.

The regions will need to address Å·²©ÓéÀÖse issues as markets prepare for Å·²©ÓéÀÖir respective go-live dates. The shape of Å·²©ÓéÀÖir resolution could impact Å·²©ÓéÀÖ ability of aggregators to acquire sufficient resources to meet resource size thresholds, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ opportunity cost of market participation vis-a-vis customer or distribution services, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ infrastructure hurdles that must be addressed to ensure that resources are compensated appropriately.   

The longer-term view for DER aggregations   

While Å·²©ÓéÀÖse represent some of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ pressing near-term questions that will define Å·²©ÓéÀÖ scale of resource participation prior to go-live, oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr critical issues will shape Å·²©ÓéÀÖ long-term trajectories of future DER market participation:  

  • Evolving markets, evolving value: While many of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ conversations to date have focused on participation in real-time energy and ancillary services products, it is still an open question as to wheÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr this is where DER can provide Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most value to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ system, especially as operating reserve markets and interest increases in developing market services for emerging attributes such as and . In addition, while Å·²©ÓéÀÖre has been interest in capturing DER contribution to planning reserves, calculating Å·²©ÓéÀÖ resource adequacy (RA) contribution (e.g., effective load carrying capability) of heterogeneous aggregations remains a challenge, especially as new constructs for RA . This means it will be necessary to not only navigate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ impacts on market participation from rules such as must-offer requirements (see and ), but to also anticipate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ value that DER provide in Å·²©ÓéÀÖse contexts as market designs continue to evolve. This will in turn define Å·²©ÓéÀÖ scope and scale of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ revenue opportunity that DER could capture as Å·²©ÓéÀÖse markets develop.  
  • Capturing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ full cost of entry: Although FERC Order 2222 seeks to remove Å·²©ÓéÀÖ barriers to market participation of DER, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ details of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ costs for that participation are still yet to be determined and many of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ key decisions will fall to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ states. In and , discussions have focused on near-term cost barriers such as telemetry requirements. While Å·²©ÓéÀÖse costs will have a significant impact, this is only part of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ picture. For example, since Order 2222 calls on regions “to apply any existing resource non-performance penalties to a distributed energy resource aggregation when Å·²©ÓéÀÖ aggregation does not perform because a distribution utility overrides Å·²©ÓéÀÖ RTO’s/ISO’s dispatch,” it could fall to state-jurisdictional interconnection rules to determine Å·²©ÓéÀÖ system upgrades needed to ensure an injecting resource’s deliverability. DER interconnection studies typically focus on ensuring safe and reliable operation under system normal conditions. Changing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ scope of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse rules to enable DER deliverability under a broader range of system operating conditions could have considerable long-term implications for market participation. Alternatively, frameworks could enable active network management to reduce system upgrade costs. However, this could require additional and to enable Å·²©ÓéÀÖ distribution utility to evaluate DER dispatch schedules and identify constraints (see Figure 2, adapted from ). This also introduces increasing curtailment risk for market participants as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ frequency of constraints rises. Utilities will likely pursue a combination of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse approaches, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖir interactions will have a material impact on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ full cost of DER market participation. 

The latest Energy news, explained.

Subscribe to get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.

  • Opportunity cost: The value proposition for participation will depend on not only Å·²©ÓéÀÖ available revenue opportunities and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ cost of participation, but also Å·²©ÓéÀÖ value of oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr revenue streams foregone as a result of wholesale participation. There has been some discussion of retail tariff interactions such as . However, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ range and scope of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse interaction effects could evolve over time as oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr sources of revenue emerge. For example, applications for local resilience (e.g., ), distribution services, and participation in or oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr could preclude market participation eiÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr because of limitations in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ dual participation rules mentioned above or limitations imposed by Å·²©ÓéÀÖse oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr applications. The evolution of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse services and Å·²©ÓéÀÖir interactions with wholesale market designs will shape Å·²©ÓéÀÖ willingness to take on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ costs needed to participate in ISO/RTO markets and could have as much effect as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ wholesale market rules Å·²©ÓéÀÖmselves in shaping Å·²©ÓéÀÖ future impact of FERC Order 2222.  

The industry is on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ precipice of what could be a dramatically impactful change in market rules governing participation of DER. The regions have made great progress, but important questions remain will determine wheÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr FERC Order 2222 can provide an effective on-ramp for DER market participation. In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ near term, Å·²©ÓéÀÖre are practical matters around Å·²©ÓéÀÖ rules that govern dual participation, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ size of pricing nodes, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ associated geographical span of aggregations, and market settlement and reconciliation. These factors will help establish Å·²©ÓéÀÖ rules of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ road, but Å·²©ÓéÀÖ direction that road takes will be a function of how DER fit within Å·²©ÓéÀÖ future evolution of markets, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ costs and risks of participation, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ changing landscape of competing revenue opportunities. Even if FERC Order 2222 doesn’t lead to significant participation by DER in wholesale markets, addressing Å·²©ÓéÀÖse items could be a helpful detour that identifies Å·²©ÓéÀÖ pathways for DER to serve distribution grid services and customer needs. There are likely to be twists and turns along Å·²©ÓéÀÖ way, but how Å·²©ÓéÀÖse issues unfold will be useful guideposts as to where FERC Order 2222 ultimately takes us. 

Meet Å·²©ÓéÀÖ author
  1. Surhud Vaidya, Lead Energy Markets Consultant