October 3 (Renewables Now) - Eleven energy industry associations in the US are requesting more time for comment and consideration of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) proposed rulemaking on grid resiliency pricing.
Last week, US Energy Secretary Rick Perry directed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to start work on new market rules to ensure that the reliability and resiliency attributes of power plants with on-site fuel supplies "are fully valued". The DOE wants measures to be taken so that the US does not lose power generators such as coal and nuclear power plants, which offer reliable capacity, resilient generation, frequency and voltage support, and have on-site fuel inventory.
The notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) from Thursday directs the FERC to “consider and complete final action” within 60 days from publication in the Federal Register, or issue the NOPR as an interim final rule, effective immediately.
In a joint motion on Monday, 11 associations, including the American Council On Renewable Energy, American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the American Petroleum Institute, and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEAI), are calling on the commission to initiate a deliberative process that considers stakeholder input on the proposed rulemaking. They point out that, given the importance and complexity of this topic, any comment period should be at least 90 days.
The group is also requesting a technical conference prior to the end of the comment period so that stakeholders would better understand the proposal and provide meaningful input.
“This is one of the most significant proposed rules in decades related to the energy industry and, if finalized, would unquestionably have significant ramifications for wholesale markets under the Commission’s jurisdiction,” says the joint motion by the energy industry associations. They note that such a rule could affect power prices paid by hundreds of millions of consumers and hundreds of thousands of businesses, so the organisations are asking FERC to reject the proposed “unreasonable timelines and instead proceed in a manner that would afford meaningful consideration of public comments and be consistent with the normal deliberative process that it typically affords such major undertakings, should it decide to proceed with a rulemaking of this type at all”.