Commissioner Mark C. Christie Statement
April 9, 2021
Docket No. RM18-9-000

I concur with today’s letter order, which grants extensions of the deadline to submit filings to comply with the requirements of Order No. 2222 to MISO, SPP and PJM. 

I would not have voted for Order No. 2222 had I been on the Commission last September and I dissented from approving Order No. 2222-A last month.[1]   

The motions filed by each of MISO[2], SPP[3] and PJM[4] illustrate the daunting complexities, potential negative impacts on reliability, and certain increased costs to consumers, all of which I referenced in my dissent to Order No. 2222-A and which apply equally to its forebear, Order No. 2222.  The problems and complexities of compliance described in these motions is further evidence that implementing Order Nos. 2222 and 2222-A will be far more complicated, far more costly to consumers and far more burdensome to states, public and municipal power authorities, and electric co-operatives, than these orders and many of their supporters acknowledge.

For example, in support of its request for extension, MISO states that Order No. 2222 “sets forth a substantial number of complex compliance requirements concerning a wide array of technical topics . . . .”[5]  Importantly, MISO describes in detail how Order No. 2222 “directly impacts MISO’s Reliability Imperative efforts” that are essential to maintain system reliability.[6]  MISO further states that “[i]n this regard, MISO notes that its resources are finite, and MISO must balance the expenditure of its resources to satisfy Order No. 2222 compliance requirements with its ongoing efforts to ensure long-term adequacy and system reliability through the Reliability Imperative.”[7]  MISO also references the “potential for MISO’s Order No. 2222 compliance to negatively impact MISO’s fundamental responsibility to ensure the continued reliable provision of power throughout its footprint.”[8]

By way of further example, SPP states in support of its motion that Order No. 2222 presents “substantial design complexities and challenges. . . ”[9] that “steer [the RTO, transmission entities, market participants and distribution utilities] all into largely uncharted waters.”[10]  SPP also states that market participants have noted that the changes mandated by Order No. 2222 “could have significant impacts on the safety and reliability of the distribution system . . .” which may even require a distribution management system to be implemented.[11]

Finally, in support of its motion, PJM too recognizes the novel challenges associated with incorporating the requirements of Order No. 2222 by noting that “the scale and complexity of the requisite coordination mandated by Order No. 2222 is in many ways unprecedented in PJM.”[12]

As I said in my remarks at the March 18, 2021 Commission Open Meeting at which Order No. 2222-A was approved and in my written dissent to that order, the costs of compliance with both Order Nos. 2222 and 2222-A will be far more substantial than have been recognized and, ultimately, consumers will pay them.  These motions offer a preview of what’s coming in terms of the complications and impacts on reliability caused by these orders and the substantial costs that will have to be expended not only to address those threats but to address the complexity of the requirements these orders impose, costs that will be piled on consumers.

Since – at least at this point – the RTOs have no choice but to comply with these orders, I respectfully concur with the letter order granting their requests for extensions of time to make their compliance filings.  I also hope that by granting these extensions these RTOs will have more time to try to mitigate some of the potential for reliability problems.  I recognize that these are validly entered orders of the Commission and the RTOs must comply, but I cannot recognize them as in the public interest.

For these reasons, I respectfully concur.



[1] Participation of Distributed Energy Resource Aggregations in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, Order No. 2222, 172 FERC ¶ 61,247 (2020), order on reh’g, Order No. 2222-A, 174 FERC ¶ 61,197 (2021) (Christie, Comm’r, dissenting) (available at

[2] February 17, 2021 Motion of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. for Extension of Order No. 2222 Initial Compliance Requirement (MISO Motion).

[3] February 18, 2021 Motion for Extension of Time of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP Motion).

[4] February 26, 2021 Motion of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. for Extension of Time to Submit Compliance Filing (PJM Motion).

[5] MISO Motion at 5.

[6] Id. at 18-19.

[7] Id. at 19 (emphasis added).

[8] Id. (emphasis added).

[9] SPP Motion at 6.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at 8, n. 20 (emphasis added).

[12] PJM Motion at 3.

Contact Information

This page was last updated on April 12, 2021