FERC 2222 号令：RTO 合规计划揭示了分布式能源整合的区域差异

本报告提供有关迄今为止所有 RTO/ISO 订单 2222 合规性提交和 FERC 响应的信息。

内容

第 1 章合规计划在 2222 号令的实施中显示出巨大的区域差异

第二章背景

第 3 章建议

第 4 章全面实施的 2222 号命令可能彻底改变美国电力市场，使几乎所有利益相关者受益

• 合规性文件显示，分散式能源资源整合的程度和速度在不断扩大的地区差异
  • 加利福尼亚独立电网运营商
  • 纽约独立电网运营商
  • 互连宾夕法尼亚-泽西-马里兰
  • 新英格兰的独立电网运营商
  • 中部大陆的独立系统运营商
  • 西南电力池
  • 德州电气可靠性委员会
• 合规申请提出了关于 2222 号命令实施的未解决问题
  • 根据 719 号命令，州监管机构可能有权禁止参与 DR 总体批发市场
• 如果仅限于单个传输节点，分布式能源聚合能否有效运行？
• 州监管机构、DU 和 RTO/ISO 是否完全有能力共同努力，协调分布式能源的零售和批发市场？
• RTO/ISO 会采用标准的 DER 聚合参与模式吗？
• 小型电力公司的选择加入条款是否有效地阻止了地方电力合作社和公共电力公司的参与？

第 5 章净计量程序和 FERC 专有语言可能会无意中阻止 2222 号令的有效性

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

Table of Contents

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

2. Context

3. Recommendations

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

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

4.1.1 California Independent System Operator

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

4.1.1.2 CAISO Limits DUs Ability to Block DER and DR Participation

4.1.1.3 FERC Responds to CAISO

4.1.2 New York Independent System Operator

4.1.2.1 NYISO Limits Aggregation to Single, Authorized Nodes

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

4.1.2.3 NYISO Proposes Bizarre Small Utility Opt-in Provision

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

4.1.3 Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland Interconnection

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

4.1.4 New England Independent System Operator

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

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

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

4.1.4.4 FERC Requests Additional Information from ISO-NE

4.1.5 The Midcontinent Independent System Operator

4.1.5.1 Restricting Aggregations to Single Pricing Nodes

4.1.5.2 Coordinating with State Regulators and DUs

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

4.1.6 Southwest Power Pool

4.1.6.1 SPP Adopts Resource Types in Lieu of Participation Models

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

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

4.1.7 Electric Reliability Council of Texas

4.2 Compliance Filings Raise Unresolved Questions About Order 2222 Implementation

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

4.2.1.1 Order 2222-a Clarified Order 719

4.2.1.2 Order 2222-b Rescinded Order 2222-a

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

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

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

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

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

List of Tables

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