FERC Invites Comments on State Energy Policy Technical Conference

Jun 1, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

The Notice specifically invites comments on five possible paths forward that were identified by FERC staff during the technical conference:

Path 1 – Limited or No Minimum Offer Price Rule: an approach that would either not apply the minimum offer price rule to state-supported resources or limit application of the minimum offer price rule to only state-supported resources where federal law pre-empts the state action providing that support

Path 2 – Accommodation of State Actions: an approach that would accommodate state policies that provide out-of-market support with the operation of the wholesale markets by allowing state-supported resources to participate in those markets and, when relevant, obtain capacity supply obligations, subject to adjustments necessary to maintain certain wholesale market prices consistent with the market results that would have been produced had those resources not been state-supported

Path 3 – Status Quo (i.e., Litigation): an approach that would rely on existing tariff provisions applying the minimum offer price rule to some state-supported resources, and continuing case-by-case litigation over the specific line to be drawn between categories of state actions that may or may not result in a state-supported resource being subject to the minimum offer price rule

Path 4 – Pricing State Policy Choices: an approach in which state policies, to the extent possible, would value the attributes (e.g., resilience) or externalities (e.g., carbon emissions) that states are targeting in a manner that can be readily integrated into the wholesale markets in a resource-neutral way; for those state policies that cannot be readily valued and integrated into the wholesale markets, Path 4 would also require consideration of what, if anything, the Commission should do to address the market impacts of these state policies; for instance, other approaches for these state policies may include accommodation, application of the minimum offer price rule or an exemption from the minimum offer price rule

Path 5 – Expanded Minimum Offer Price Rule: an approach that would minimize the impact of state-supported resources on wholesale market prices by expanding the existing scope of the minimum offer price rule to apply to both new and existing capacity resources that participate in the capacity market and receive state support.3

FERC staff also invites comments on (i) how a path forward should be selected, (ii) the urgency of developing a solution, (ii) long-term expectations regarding the interaction between wholesale markets and state policies, and (iv) how competitive market frameworks can be reconciled with state preferences for certain resources.  In drafting comments, FERC staff indicates that commenters may reference materials from the technical conference’s record,4 including the day-one and day-two transcripts, “but are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous material.”5

Initial comments are due on June 22, 2017, and should not exceed 15 pages.   Reply comments are due July 7, 2017, and should not exceed 10 pages.


1 Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments, Docket No. AD17-11-000 (May 23, 2017) (available here).

2 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; and ISO New England, Inc.

3 Notice at 1-2.

4 Docket No. AD17-11-000.

5 Notice at 3.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.