Recent Complaints Highlight Continued Friction between State Policy Goals and Federally Regulated Wholesale Power Markets

by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

On June 24, 2016, two complaints were filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission or FERC”) that highlight the continued tension between state policy initiatives and the mandatory centralized capacity markets operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (RTOs/ISOs). The complaints are just the latest in a series of FERC proceedings that raise the question of whether buyer-side market power mitigation measures in those markets (such as minimum offer price rules) are necessary to maintain accurate price signals in the face of state policies or whether such measures unduly interfere with legitimate state policy goals. More broadly, they also will likely add to the debate over the appropriate division between federal and state regulatory authority under the Federal Power Act in the context of the still-evolving RTO/ISO markets.

Capacity Markets and Minimum Offer Price Rules

The three eastern RTOs/ISOs—ISO New England (ISO-NE), the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) and PJM Interconnection—all operate mandatory centralized electric capacity markets as a tool to maintain sufficient resources (including generation and demand response) to reliably serve customers. These markets are intended to provide price signals to incent the construction of new resources and to provide a critical source of revenue to existing resources. Using an auction mechanism, each RTO/ISO purchases electric capacity from generators and other resources to meet the region’s expected load obligations, plus a reserve margin, for a period in the future. The RTO/ISO then recovers the costs of those purchases from utilities (who pass those costs on to consumers). Resources submit sell offers into the auction, and those with a sell offer equal to or less than the auction “clearing price” will “clear” the auction and receive payments for capacity equal to the clearing price (regardless of what they actually bid). Resources that fail to “clear the auction” (i.e., submit sell offers in excess of the final clearing price) do not receive capacity payments. Thus, while resources are generally expected to submit offers reflecting their “net going-forward costs” to operate (less expected income from energy and ancillary services markets), in some cases, they may offer well below that amount to ensure that they clear the auction.

In recent years, concerns have been raised that buyers of capacity (load-serving entities and their customers) may have incentives to take actions in the capacity market that artificially suppress capacity prices below competitive levels and lower their total capacity bill. This is a form of “buyer-side market power.”  For example, a load-serving entity could, under certain circumstances, construct or procure a new generation resource and offer it into the capacity market at well below its costs, lowering the market clearing price and the overall capacity costs passed to it from the RTO/ISO. In some circumstances—such as the recent Maryland and New Jersey state-sponsored capacity programs that the Supreme Court recently concluded were pre-empted by federal law—state regulators may direct a load-serving entity to take such an action and allow it to recover the full costs it incurs to construct or procure the new resource from retail customers. This “subsidy,” as some have labeled it, allows the new resource to bid below its costs in the capacity market without risk that it will fail to recover those costs if the market clears at a lower price.  

FERC has found that this kind of artificial price suppression in the capacity markets may interfere with the price signals that such markets are intended to provide, discouraging new entry and potentially leading existing generators to retire too early because of insufficient payments. To address this concern, the RTOs/ISOs (often at FERC’s insistence) have instituted buyer-side market power mitigation rules, such as minimum offer price rules. These rules prevent certain resources—generally new resources—from submitting low offers and require them to offer at a price that more closely mirrors their costs, rather than allowing them to bid below their costs. Because these resources are required to submit higher offers, they face a greater risk that they will not clear the market and receive capacity payments.

June 24, 2016, Complaints

In the first of the June 24 complaints, two generation owners in the ISO-NE market allege that additional buyer-side market power mitigation measures are needed to address the alleged potential for suppression of wholesale prices by proposed state efforts to support the construction of new natural gas pipeline capacity to deliver gas to electric generators in the region.1 Under those proposals, which are pending before utility commissions in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island, electric distribution companies (EDCs) would enter into contracts for new pipeline capacity, with the contract costs recovered from their retail customers. The EDCs would then release that pipeline capacity for purchase and use by gas-fired electric generators in the region. Complainants—who state that they own generation that is either not natural gas-fired or not located near the contemplated pipeline—assert that these proposals, if approved, will result in a “subsidy” benefiting only those generators using the released capacity, and will “suppress wholesale market clearing prices by artificially flooding the market with supply and by artificially decreasing transportation costs.”2 The complainants ask the Commission to find that this alleged “price suppressive effect” will result in unjust and unreasonable wholesale prices, and to direct ISO-NE to develop and file tariff revisions to mitigate this effect.

Rather than seeking additional buyer-side mitigation measures, the other June 24 complaint, jointly filed by the New York Public Service Commission, several other New York governmental agencies and two nonprofit organizations, seeks to exempt certain demand response resources from the buyer-side market power mitigation measures that apply to resources participating in the NYISO capacity market.3 Under these measures, all new resources in New York City and the Lower Hudson Valley regions must offer into the capacity market at a predetermined minimum offer price (or “floor”). Among other things, the NYISO tariff includes in the calculation of a demand resource’s minimum offer price any payments received from state-approved retail demand response programs (e.g., distribution-level load relief programs). The complainants assert that applying these mitigation measures to demand response resources participating in state programs limits their full participation in the capacity market (since they are excluded if the market clears below their minimum offer price) and may force them to choose to forgo participating in state programs to avoid mitigation. These outcomes, they contend, directly interfere with New York’s policy objectives to promote and maximize the use of demand response resources, and interfere with the state’s authority over distribution rates, and reliability and distribution planning matters, which are all left to the states under the Federal Power Act. For these reasons, the complainants ask FERC to adopt a blanket exemption from buyer-side mitigation for these demand response resources or, in the alternative, exclude the revenues they receive from certain specific state programs from the calculation of their minimum offer price.


These complaints are just the latest in a string of FERC proceedings addressing buyer-side market power issues in the eastern RTO/ISO centralized capacity markets and, in particular, how state policy initiatives can (or cannot) be accommodated in those markets. In all three markets, FERC has issued numerous orders in the past five years that revised the types of resources to which minimum offer price rules apply and that granted or rejected exemptions for capacity resources developed pursuant to state public policies (e.g., renewable portfolio standards). The June 24 complaints once again ask FERC to draw lines regarding the extent to which state policy objectives may, or may not, impermissibly affect wholesale prices.  

The complaints also come on the heels of increased litigation and debate regarding the division of authority between the federal and state governments under the Federal Power Act. The Supreme Court issued two opinions this term (in FERC v. EPSA and Hughes v. Talen Energy) that addressed jurisdictional disputes in the RTO/ISO markets. Those decisions both ruled in favor of federal jurisdiction on relatively narrow grounds and explicitly declined to rule more broadly on the scope of federal and state authority. In a recent letter to FERC seeking additional information on RTO/ISO market performance, congressional leaders raised concerns that these decisions may spur additional jurisdictional uncertainty and litigation going forward. FERC may be forced to again wade into this increasingly uncertain area of the law in addressing the complaints.

1 NextEra Energy Resources, LLC and PSEG Companies v. ISO New England Inc., Complaint, Docket No. EL16-93-000 (filed June 24, 2016).
2 Id. at 29-30.
3 New York State Public Service Commission, et al. v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Complaint, Docket No. EL16-92-000 (filed June 24, 2016).

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.