DOE’s Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule

INSIGHTi

DOE’s Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule

name redacted

Specialist in Energy Policy

October 13, 2017

In U.S. regions with competitive electricity markets, the market price of wholesale electricity has fallen in

recent years due to decreased demand, and the increased availability of relatively low-priced natural gas

as a fuel. The relatively higher cost of operating and maintaining older, less efficient coal and nuclear

plants in particular make it difficult for them to compete with lower cost, more efficient natural gas-fired

power plants, or with renewable electricity generation with lower operating costs (and in some cases, tax

credits and state mandates). These coal and nuclear power plants may be increasingly faced with closure

and eventual retirement if they cannot offer their generation at prices that allow them to sell their

electricity into the competitive markets. Competitive electricity markets are administered by independent

system operators (ISOs) and regional transmission organizations (RTOs), and account for 60% of the

electricity supply in the United States. These entities are under the regulatory authority of the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

The Secretary of Energy’s Proposed Rule

Some observers have expressed concerns that the trend of closures of coal and nuclear power plants will

impact the fuel diversity and reliability of the electric power industry, while others dispute that there is a

need for concern. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) undertook an analysis examining electricity

markets and reliability, finding that while “[m]arkets recognize and compensate reliability, and must

evolve to continue to compensate reliability... more work is needed to address resilience.” In this report,

DOE describes a resilient system as one able to “anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and/or rapidly recover from

a potentially disruptive event.” Because of the fuel storage requirements of coal plants and the length of

the fuel cycle of nuclear power plants they were termed “fuel-secure” generation, which potentially

increase the resiliency of the grid. The Secretary of Energy appears to have concluded from the report that

certain reliability and resiliency attributes of fuel-secure generation were not being appropriately valued

in competitive electricity markets. The Secretary appears to see a trend of premature retirements of fuelsecure coal and nuclear power plants as a situation which may impair the resiliency of the grid, a trend

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

IN10806

CRS INSIGHT

Prepared for Members and

Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service

2

that could be reduced by rates which compensate such fuel-secure generation for its resiliency attributes.

On October 10, 2017, the Energy Secretary proposed the Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule (82 Federal

Register 46940), based on DOE’s authority under Section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization

Act (P.L. 95-91; DOE Act). In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Energy Secretary

directed FERC to use its authority under the Federal Power Act to establish “just and reasonable rates” for

wholesale electricity sales. The DOE Secretary directed FERC to take final action on its proposal by

December 9, 2017 (within 60 days of the rule’s publication in the Federal Register) or, alternatively, to

issue the rule as an interim final rule immediately, with provision for later modifications after

consideration of public comments.

FERC’s Responsibility

Under the DOE’s proposal, FERC is to impose rules on ISOs and RTOs to ensure that certain reliability

and resilience attributes of coal and nuclear power generation resources are fully valued. FERC issued a

request for comments on October 4, 2017 on the NOPR under FERC Docket No. RM18-1-000. The

comment deadline is October 23, 2017; reply comments are due before November 7, 2017.

Should FERC follow the procedures under Section 404 of the DOE Act, following the public comment

period, FERC may consult with the DOE Secretary, and shall either (1) concur in adoption of the rule; (2)

concur in adopting the rule only with recommended changes; or (3) recommend that the rule not be

adopted. FERC is to then promptly publish its recommendations with an explanation of the reason for its

actions and provide an analysis of major comments, criticisms, and alternatives offered during the

comment period. Following FERC’s publication of its recommendation, the Secretary has the option of

either (1) issuing a final rule as proposed if FERC has concurred in its adoption; (2) issuing an amended

final rule conforming in all respects with the changes proposed by FERC; or (3) ordering that the final

rule not be issued. This would then constitute the final agency action regarding the proposed rule.

Acting FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee recently responded to questions on the NOPR, saying that FERC

may not issue a final decision on the cost recovery proposal within the 60-day timeline requested by

DOE. Other options include extending comments, holding technical conferences, or issuing a new

rulemaking order that supersedes the DOE proposal.

Potential Impacts of the Rule

In its request for comments, FERC posed a number of questions primarily on the need for the reforms

requested by the Energy Secretary and how such potential reforms might be implemented. FERC also

asked what the potential impact of the rule may be on consumers. Some observers have focused on the

potential effect of the rule on electricity prices, while others have questioned the impact of the rule on the

integrity of competitive markets.

Other Administration Actions to Support Coal

The Energy Secretary’s proposed Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule appears to be part of the Trump

Administration’s broader strategy to support coal-fired power generation. The Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency has also recently proposed a repeal of the Obama Administration’s

Clean Power Plan (CPP).

The CPP was finalized in 2015, and issued emission guidelines for states to use in developing plans to

limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing power plants. As of 2015, fossil fuels for electric

power generation accounted for more than one-third of U.S. CO2 emissions. Some have speculated that

Congressional Research Service

EPA may seek to replace the CPP with a rule focused on measures such as increasing power plant

efficiency by equipment upgrades and heat rate improvements. It is currently unclear whether, or how, a

revised plan might also seek to increase nuclear power electricity generation as a way to reduce CO2

emissions.

3

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

copyright on any CRS report we have republished.