What's the difference between a generator over-forecasting its output in order to collect DAMAP payments from MISO when their day-ahead schedule is higher than their actual real-time output, and an electricity market trader making trades designed to collect MLSA transmission credit payments from PJM?

It sure looks like it's based on pre-conceived notions of the "goodness" of the recipient of the regional transmission organization payments.

A recent article in RTO Insider details a report to MISO's market subcommittee by Market Monitor David Patton, which revealed "some wind generators appear to be deliberately over-forecasting their output to inflate their revenues."

DAMAP payments are described like this:

Read the whole article for an explanation of how DAMAP can and is being manipulated by wind generators to receive higher compensation payments. 

This is complicated stuff!  Regional energy markets are extremely complicated, to the point that they are nearly incomprehensible to the regular folks who fund millions of dollars in "market compensation" payments every year in their electric bills.  But don't feel too bad, it appears that energy markets are also complicated for the experts who create and police them to try to prevent manipulation by traders and other participants.  Every regional electric market would be well-served by a couple of whip-smart analysts whose only job is to continually test the market by attempting to find ways to manipulate it for profit.  Obviously the creators and monitors of these markets are completely blind to the opportunities they create that allow participants to unwittingly "push the money button" and be rewarded by compensation payments.  To expect Pavlov's dogs to immediately report the unexpected reward they received, instead of continuing to push the button and feast at will, is unnatural.  If the creators and monitors of energy markets expect an unnatural response, they need to provide a compensatory reward for it.  In lieu of having staff dedicated to and capable of rooting out flaws, market monitors should look at providing the stimulus necessary to find volunteers within the market participants.

So, how did the MISO Market Monitor propose to solve this problem, once discovered?  He proposed changes to the market, instead of punishing the wind energy dogs who had been pushing the money button that brought it to his attention.  He chose to stop ringing the bell.

But how did the PJM Market Monitor propose to solve a similar "money button" problem that developed in his own market?  He worked with FERC to punish the traders who pushed the button and brought it to his attention.  He beat the dog.  In fact, FERC has proposed fining the traders somewhere in the neighborhood of $35M.

Why the disparate treatment?  Is it because the general public looks disparagingly upon "Wall Street" (and therefore traders big and small) as the root of all evil?  Is it because wind energy is looked upon by the same public as a "clean" and "good" struggling industry?  I've got news for you, general public.  Big wind is a hugely profitable industry whose greed knows no bounds!  What may have started out as a cottage industry predicated upon selfless environmental gains has morphed into a gigantic subsidy- and compensation-gobbling monster that fills the pockets of foreign investors with your gold.  Years of environmental propaganda has conditioned you to behave just like Pavlov's dogs when you hear the words "clean energy."  You may believe anything with a "green" label must be "good" and therefore more valuable, without examining any actual benefits to you.

Energy markets will only work if they are consistent.  Allowing one group of participants to escape the punishment heaped upon another group isn't consistent.  What kind of bell are they trying to ring?

Oh, and big wind is ripping you off... big time!

Wow, time's a running short for the Rock Island Clean Line to get its Exhibit E material filed at the Iowa Utility Board.  Even with Clean Line whining about the expense and time involved in collecting the information, the IUB set a deadline of January 13, 2017 for the filing of Exhibit E material for at least 4 counties, each of which shall have an approximately average number of condemnation parcels.  That means no cheating by submitting the counties with the smallest number of condemnation parcels first.  And then every month thereafter, Clean Line must file Exhibit E material for at least 4 more "average" counties, with all material to be filed by May 1, 2017.

So, where ya been, Clean Line?  I thought the idea of all these delays was to give you opportunity to sign more voluntary easements?  I'm guessing that's not going to happen, since nobody has seen Clean Line doing much of anything in Iowa.  Just another waste of time.  However, the clock is ticking toward the deadline for merchant projects that was made law by the Iowa legislature last session.  There's no time to waste!  And, speaking of the legislature, won't Clean Line have fun during the upcoming session, now that the Iowa Senate is Republican lead?

I wonder what's going to be more expensive, the Exhibit E material, or the money Clean Line is going to spend on lobbyists during the upcoming legislative session?  Money-saving tip:  Don't waste your money on lobbyists next year!  Nobody's interested in listening to you cry about how poor you are at the IUB when you're shelling out millions for lobbyists all over the place.

And remember what the IUB suggests regarding eminent domain for utility projects:

Right.  Those Exhibit E's take a lot of time and money to prepare, but that's nothing compared to the public relations (and political) nightmare you're about to embark upon.  The taking of more than 1,000 parcels of land in Iowa by eminent domain to build your project is never going to happen.  Successful utility projects typically take less than 10% of property through eminent domain, not 85%.  You must have done something wrong in Iowa, Clean Line.... like arrogantly assuming you could force landowners to negotiate after the IUB rubberstamped your request for eminent domain authority.  Ooops!

And what good is any of this when you don't have a permit in Illinois?  You're awfully optimistic about your chances before the Illinois Supreme Court, not to mention your unrealistic timetable to which the Court is very unlikely to adhere.  What does your fantasy timetable have to do with the amount of money you're spending in Iowa which may turn out to be a total waste?

And then you go and do this... you use "Theresa" to speak on your behalf in the Chicago Tribune story about your Supreme Court case.  Err.... I mean Nancy, because that's apparently her real name, not the one she signed up as at the Illinois Commerce Commission public hearing in Mendota in September of 2013.  Look, same woman in the Tribune story, except in that sign up line she wrote her name as "Theresa Hoover."

Nancy, aka "Theresa" is obviously only supporting Clean Line in exchange for the tax money she thinks it will bring to her county.  She doesn't look like she was having a great time tromping through the mud pretending to like Clean Line for the Tribune photographer.  But what won't these local economic development employees do for a buck?

So, RICL, stop wasting your investors' money on this project and just go away.  You'll never beat the clock.

Tick Tock!