Tuesday, March 19, 2019

NYISO, SPP: Reject Tx Developers’ Protests

By William Opalka and Tom Kleckner

NYISO and SPP told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last week it should reject transmission developers’ protests to their recent Order 1000 compliance filings.

NYISO said that LS Power and NextEra Energy made “inaccurate or misleading statements” in response to its filing, and that the protests raise issues outside of the proceeding and propose changes that would impair system reliability (ER13-102).

LS Power and NextEra filed their protests in response to the ISO’s April compliance filing. (See Tx Developers Challenge NYISO, SPP, ISO-NE Order 1000 Filings.)

LS Power said an incumbent transmission owner should be required to execute a development agreement if its regulated backstop solution is selected by NYISO as the more efficient or cost-effective transmission. “It is important that the developer agreement impose no more stringent obligations on the developer of an alternative regulated solution,” it wrote.

NextEra said the filing burdens alternative developers without guaranteeing faster project completion.

NYISO responded that the incumbents are already required to file a development agreement under Order 1000. The ISO said the language suggested by NextEra “would interfere with the existing requirements to timely identify and address potential project delays.”

SPP Protest

LS Power also filed a protest against SPP, which responded by saying its May 18 compliance filing fully complied with FERC’s directives.

The RTO said LS Power’s arguments were a “collateral attack” on Order 1000. “SPP has demonstrated full compliance with all of the regional transmission planning and cost allocation requirements of Order No. 1000” and FERC’s compliance orders, SPP said (ER13-366-006).

In April, FERC ordered SPP to submit a fourth compliance filing revising Tariff provisions pertaining to “‘rights of way where facilities exist.’” The commission said SPP must acknowledge that “retention, modification or transfer” of rights of way remain subject to state and local laws.

SPP said its proposal is “substantially similar” to FERC’s Order 1000 language and that LS Power failed “to demonstrate otherwise.”

LS Power said SPP should only invoke the right-of-way language when the relevant law expressly “prohibits” alteration of existing rights of way and there is only one “feasible route” for the transmission project that would alter a transmission owner’s use over its existing rights of way.

The RTO also said LS Power’s request “seeks to impose requirements on SPP not found in Order No. 1000 and not required by the commission in the SPP compliance orders or in other Order No. 1000 transmission planning regions.”

Leave a Comment





Top