Transcript:
I’m Leif, I’m a Vermont ratepayer. I have some questions about ISO’s scope. So, 400 of us submitted comments to the FERC docket opposing the most recent forward capacity auction results, and in response, we got a statement from ISO that said, “these concerns are about climate change, they’re outside the scope of FERC you should ignore them.” This is frustrating for several reasons. One, that’s not what our comments were about. Our comments were are about the fact that ISO’s market structure and continued funding of fossil fuels through the FCA results prohibit ISO’s ability to perform its three critical roles in New England. And so our comments therefore were about tariff compliance. So it’s pretty insulting that hundreds of relevant ratepayer comments are being asked to be ignored. Also, just this idea that climate change isn’t relevant to the ISO’s decision making process and the FCA is absurd to me. You said yourself in your presentation, “climate change is our reality.” And it is the biggest single threat to grid reliability. So- this idea that ISO can’t and FERC can’t consider it in their analysis of the FCA results is honestly terrifying.
But I think the thing that scares me the most about this response (and also about what you’re saying now) are just the contradictions about neutrality in it. Every time we come and ask for a just transition, we hear these arguments that “ISO has to be electron-neutral, we can’t take a political stance on one form of energy over the other, because that’s the jurisdiction of the states.” But the truth is, these concerns only seem to come up when it comes to support for renewables. ISO officials have gone around saying, “we need more natural gas from the grid.” You said yourself that ISO officials have asked fossil fuel plants to stay! A 2019 study by the sustainable FERC project found that ISO has an empirically verified bias towards fossil fuels and against renewables. So, electron neutrality isn’t real. And ISO is also more than willing to step into the political realm when it comes to things like MOPR, which are designed to mitigate against state legislation and undermine state renewable transition efforts. So- ISO is already deciding what fuels are present on our grid, and you are picking fossil fuels.
So, my question for you is, how do we fix this? Is there reforms that we as ratepayers can support that would allow you to actually enact your mission of providing reliable and safe and affordable energy to ratepayers? Or is the tariff really the issue? Do we need to change the tariff? How do we support you in expanding your scope to actual 21st century grid management? Because that’s not what’s happening. And honestly all of this makes me wonder if ISO has been so taken over by fossil fuel interests that you’re no longer willing to enact your mission. And if that’s the case, we want to know now. We don’t have very much time to transition our grid, so I just want to ask, do we need to abolish ISO itself? Do we need to come up with a different grid management system that will actually fulfill the needs of the region, or are you all willing to change?
