Talk:Regional transmission organization (North America)

Merge (2007)

This article should probably be merged with Independent System Operator, though I am undecided on which title the combined article should retain. Thoughts? Fjbfour 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Both should be merged into a single article and I would recommend ISO/RTO as a new title. This would be consistent with the ISO/RTO Council naming convention. If I receive enough positive response as supporting comments here, I would be inclined to draft a new article. Such a revision and merge would likely resolve the NPOV as well. Thoughts? Smbateman (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have created a working draft called ISO/RTO to facilitate a discussion. It is a work-in-progress and I intend to combine information from Independent System Operator and Regional Transmission Organization into a single article. Smbateman (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Either way, let's get it done ASAP. This proposal has been hanging on the wire, so to speak, for over years! Bearian (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV 2008-11

This is a notation of why I stuck NPOV on the article. There is a lace of anti-regulation rhetoric in the article. For example, "FERC describes this as a "voluntary" system, however both its orders and FERC commissioners' comments were clear that they wanted to force anyone involved in interstate power transmission to sign on the dotted line." Clear? How? Force? Nefarious motives? Huh? The following section also seemed to have an axe to grind, especially in the closing statement:

"However, in the last decade of the 20th century, some policy makers and academics began to argue that the electric industry would ultimately experience deregulation, and RTOs were conceived as the way to handle the vastly increased number of transactions that take place in a competitive environment. It should be noted that, ultimately, only about a dozen states decided to deregulate, others having pulled back after California's debacle and still others deciding that perhaps the old system was not, as often claimed, irretrievably broken. If the justification for creating RTOs was the management of deregulated power markets, the relative lack of these markets may call into the question the creation of the organizations."

If anyone has time to fix it, be my guest and remove the npov. -J JMesserly (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

This article has several inaccuracies. All would be resolved as described under the Merge section. Examples include:

1. "an organization that is responsible for moving electricity over large interstate areas." -- The responsibility is greater than this and includes intrastate as well.
2. "RTOs were created by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)" -- RTOs are created voluntarily by groups of transmission providers, load serving entities and generators. FERC recommended the concept of an RTO under Order Number 2000.
3. "FERC commissioners' comments were clear that they wanted to force anyone involved in interstate power transmission to sign on the dotted line." -- untrue
4. Use of the term "Deregulation" -- The North American power market is not deregulated. FERC orders specified restructuring.
5. "RTOs ensure three key free marketer drives" -- At a minimum, there are 4 characteristics and 7 functions of an RTO.
6. "ISOs typically perform the same functions as RTOs, but cover a smaller geographic area, or are not subject to FERC jurisdiction, like ERCOT." -- Smaller geography is not the differentiator nor is FERC jurisdiction; true, ERCOT, is not overseen by FERC but it's because ERCOT does not participate in interstate commerce. ERCOT performs the role of an RTO without the "RTO" designation because it has never petitioned FERC for the right. Doing so would place ERCOT under FERC jurisdiction which is something ERCOT is not in favor of.

Smbateman (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep

The content about electricity distribution in the US should be re-organized, a hierarchy should be outlined and detail added, with the provisions for changes which are underway with these organizations controlling the grid. The US Grid is under-going upgrades & changes, (smart-grid efforts), and work needs to be done to clarify this hierarchy, ie, (FERC/DoE, ISO/RTO, PUC) and the scope of oversight they provide. Also a US ISO/RTO map should be added. -- (Don Doughty) 19:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is primarily about the US grid, not global. Little content is about the electricity marketplace. If merge with Transmission system operator is to occur, a major rewrite and split is nescessary. TGCP (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ownership and financing

It should be clarified who actually owns the transmission grid and how it's financed. I assume individual utilities do so. I know there's a "transmission" charge on ratepayer bills, but it's unclear to me how the cost for regional transmission is allocated among local utilities. -- Beland (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

RTO status is wrong?

According to the FERC's website (November 2011)

• SPP was granted RTO status in 2004.
• MISO is not an RTO. Rick lightburn (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

International perspective needed

This article at present is essentially only about the electricity systems of the US and some parts of Canada. To complicate things further, there is another largely stranded article ISO RTO with extensive overlapping coverage, also of the North American system. A broader perspective is needed.

However, there is a separate article Transmission system operator that should also be considered.

One possibility could be to leave this Regional transmission organization page focussed on the North American system, and modify the page title accordingly. International perspectives could be provided in a separate article with a back-reference to the content here. Alternatively, there could be a major reworking of this article to provide a broader perspective.

A related issue is the term Independent System Operator, which currently re-directs to Regional transmission organization. This needs some attention, because the term Independent System Operator is used in other jurisdictions, where FERC rules etc are irrelevant.

My preference is to:

1. re-title the article Regional transmission organization to Regional transmission organization (North America) (or similar), and deal with whatever linking issues arise from such a change (I might need help with this !)
2. merge the content from ISO RTO into the re-titled article to improve the content about the North American system
3. develop the article Transmission system operator to provide a more international context (including clarifying the role of the grid owner, the regional system operator, the role of independent system operators, and the relationship with electricity markets)
4. create a reference from the Transmission system operator article to the modified Regional transmission organization article as the "main article" representing practice in North America
5. change the re-direct for Independent System Operator to the article Transmission system operator instead

Comments please.

I am willing to help with this, but would need a collaborator with expertise in the North American system ! Marshelec (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly, on all points. I even meant to propose those myself, but then I noticed your post here, and noticed that you beat me to it.

I don't have much spare time lately, but I'll start with merging content from ISO RTO here. I'm not an expert on American practice, but the articles are sufficiently well developed to provide sufficient information (we badly need a map though, such as [1]). No such user (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I will wait for your edits, and then see what is the most useful next step for me to take. I am willing to put some time into this, so long as someone else is willing to provide constructive feedback ! Marshelec (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Reporting also the title change, as agreed above (step 1). Klbrain (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliability Coordinator (RC) Map Replacing RTO Map

Is NERC's map a more up-to-date version of RTOs than the one included in this article? If so, can we replace the map here with a more complete one? https://www.nerc.com/pa/rrm/bpsa/Pages/RCs.aspx 75.119.181.2 (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)