Bill Overview
Title: Empowering RTO Stakeholders Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to undertake rulemaking to adopt policies and procedures for maintaining the independence of Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs) and enhancing their responsiveness to customers and stakeholders. (RTOs and ISOs manage the generation and transmission components of the electric grid in areas with a competitive market for wholesale electric power.)
Sponsors: Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6]
Target Audience
Population: People whose electricity service is overseen by RTOs/ISOs or similar systems globally
Estimated Size: 200000000
- Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs) manage electricity in large regions, impacting a vast number of electricity consumers.
- There are seven RTOs/ISOs serving much of the 48 contiguous United States and parts of Canada, as well as several independent markets in other countries.
- RTOs and ISOs coordinate and monitor electricity markets that influence the power grid for large populations, ranging from millions to tens of millions of consumers per RTO or ISO.
- The bill affects stakeholders and customers in these regions, including residential, commercial, and industrial consumers.
- The global population with access to electricity is approximately 7 billion, and many of these people are within systems influenced by similar coordination as RTOs/ISOs, depending on the capacity and reach of these systems.
Reasoning
- The population likely to be affected broadly includes users of electricity in regions served by RTOs/ISOs, which comprise a large segment of the U.S. population.
- Given the budget constraints of $30 million in the first year and $192.5 million over 10 years, the policy's direct impact is limited to improvements in grid operations and customer responsiveness, likely improving satisfaction and potentially reducing costs over time.
- Since the policy doesn't directly subsidize consumer costs but aims to enhance organizational efficiency and responsiveness, immediate, tangible impacts on individuals might be limited.
- However, better efficiency could lead to long-term indirect benefits for a range of consumers, especially those who actively interact with these systems, such as energy companies and commercial businesses relying on these markets.
- Considering common public views about electricity management and responsiveness issues, the policy might create varying degrees of impact based on individuals' geographical location, awareness, and engagement with the energy market.
Simulated Interviews
Electrician (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy makes the RTO/ISO more responsive to issues, especially during peak loads.
- If they maintain independence, maybe it'll lead to better service without political interference.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could improve grid efficiency which is important for my line of work.
- Reducing outages and better load management would be beneficial to consumers and professionals alike.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Farmer (Rural Iowa)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not sure how much this will affect me, but if it stabilizes prices, that's good.
- Independence of these organizations could reduce political bickering about energy policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Environmental Activist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need transparency and independence to ensure sustainable practices are followed.
- Hope this policy leads to real accountability in electricity management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Energy Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The independence of RTOs and ISOs is crucial for unbiased market operations.
- I see this policy potentially preventing unnecessary disruptions in the market.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvements in this area that lead to cost savings are important for my business.
- My main hope is that competition won't drive prices up.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Energy Consultant (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Greater responsiveness from RTOs could enhance energy solutions we propose.
- Maintaining independence can help streamline services for clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could encourage better integration of renewables into the grid.
- I hope it leads to more innovation in energy markets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Industrial Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy prevents outages, it's worth it for industrial operations like ours.
- We need stable power to ensure productivity and safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Project Manager at a Tech Firm (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The responsiveness of our RTO impacts our long-term sustainability projects.
- This policy might help streamline processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring minimal costs while achieving regulatory objectives.
- Potential indirect financial benefits from a stable and well-managed electricity grid.
- Flexibility in administrative adjustments over time as electricity markets evolve.