UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`BEFORE THE
`FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
`
`Docket No. EL13-888-000
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Northern Indiana
`Public Service Company
`
`v.
`
`Midcontinent Independent
`System Operator, Inc. and
`PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
`
`MOTION TO INTERVENE AND COMMENT OF
`INTERNATIONAL TRANSMISSION COMPANY d/b/a ITCTRANSMISSION, MICHIGAN
`ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC, AND ITC MIDWEST LLC
`
`Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure1 of the Federal Energy
`
`Regulatory Commission (“Commission”), International Transmission Company d/b/a
`
`ITCTransmission, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, and ITC Midwest LLC
`
`(collectively, “ITC” or “ITC Companies”) respectfully move to intervene in the above-captioned
`
`proceeding, and submit these comments on the issues raised by the Northern Indiana Public
`
`Service Company (“NIPSCO”) therein. ITC has filed a timely, unopposed motion to intervene in
`
`the four dockets which comprise the competing interregional transmission planning and cost
`
`allocation proposals filed by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) and
`
`1 18 C.F.R. §385.214 (2013). On October 1, 2013, the Commission issued a notice
`extending the deadline for responding to NIPSCO’s complaint to October 31, 2013. “Notice
`of Extension of Time,” Docket No. EL13-88-000 (Oct. 1, 2013).
`
`

`

`Docket No. EL13-88-000
`
`PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”) against which NIPSCO has made its complaint,2 and by
`
`operation of Rule 214(c)(1) is a party to those proceedings. As discussed further herein, ITC
`
`concurs with NIPSCO’s assessment that the current MISO-PJM interregional planning
`
`process under the existing Joint Operating Agreement (“JOA”) is flawed, and that
`
`perpetuation of that process is neither fully compliant with Order No. 1000 nor likely to
`
`remedy the failure of the JOA to produce a single interregional transmission project between
`
`MISO and PJM.
`
`I.
`
`MOTION TO INTERVENE
`
`International Transmission Company d/b/a ITCTransmission, Michigan Electric
`
`Transmission Company, LLC, and ITC Midwest LLC are independent, stand-alone
`
`transmission companies engaged exclusively in the development, ownership and operation
`
`of facilities for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce. Each is a
`
`subsidiary of ITC Holdings Corp., which invests exclusively in the electric power
`
`transmission grid to improve electric reliability, facilitate access to renewable and other
`
`generation, improve access to power markets, and reduce the overall cost of delivered
`
`electric power. Transmission service over facilities developed and owned by the ITC
`
`Companies is provided by the MISO pursuant to the Tariff. The ITC Companies are all
`
`Transmission Owner members of the MISO. As MISO Transmission Owners and parties to
`
`the Order No. 1000 compliance filing proceedings in which MISO and PJM have made their
`
`respective proposals, the ITC Companies are each directly impacted by the interregional
`
`2 “Motion to Intervene and Comment of International Transmission Company, et al.”,
`Docket Nos. ER13-1924-000; ER13-1943-000; ER13-1944-000; ER13-1945-000 (Aug. 26,
`2013) (“ITC Intervention”).
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. EL13-88-000
`
`planning and cost allocation provisions against which NIPSCO has filed a complaint. Thus,
`
`the ITC Companies have a specific, direct, and substantial interest in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding. The ITC Companies have unique interests that cannot be adequately
`
`represented by any other party. Accordingly, the ITC Companies request that the
`
`Commission grant this Motion for Leave to Intervene in this proceeding and permit it to
`
`become a full party for all purposes.
`
`II.
`
`COMMENT
`
`In the comments filed in the MISO and PJM Order No. 1000 interregional
`
`transmission planning and cost allocation compliance dockets, the ITC Companies
`
`observed that the two proposals proffered therein would only perpetuate the past failure of
`
`the current JOA provisions to identify a single interregional transmission project. While
`
`ITC limited its comments in those proceedings to the aspects of interregional transmission
`
`planning and cost allocation required by Order No. 1000 over which the two Regional
`
`Transmission Organizations (“RTOs”) actively disagreed, ITC agrees that additional
`
`reforms beyond the requirements of Order No. 1000 may be needed to properly plan for and
`
`identify potential interregional projects across the irregular and highly intertwined seam
`
`between these two RTOs. ITC further agrees that the unique circumstances and history of
`
`the MISO-PJM seam forms a context in which the Commission should evaluate the justness
`
`and reasonableness of interregional cost allocation methodologies proposed therein, and that
`
`this context may require reforms beyond the scope of Order No. 1000’s compliance
`
`requirements. In direct contrast to other RTOs, which were created using boundaries that
`
`reflected long-standing physical divisions of the bulk electric system, MISO and PJM were
`
`created using an essentially arbitrary geographic boundary between the two RTOs which cut
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. EL13-88-000
`
`through overlapping systems owned by member utilities from a common historical planning
`
`region, resulting in a seam which the Commission itself observed is “highly
`
`interconnected.”3 ITC reiterates its observation that it is simply inconceivable that there
`
`does not exist a single interregional transmission project across this “highly interconnected”
`
`seam which would not provide some economic, congestion, reliability, or public policy
`
`benefit to the customers of both regions. Yet the JOA which PJM proposes to continue
`
`using as the basis for interregional planning and interregional project cost allocation (which
`
`MISO proposes to further curtail) has abjectly failed to identify any such project.
`
`Continuation of the JOA will only continue to deny customers of MISO and PJM from
`
`receiving the benefits of cross-border transmission projects.
`
`If the goals of Order No. 1000’s interregional transmission planning provisions are to
`
`be achieved where, as here, the RTOs sharing a common border have failed to agree upon a
`
`cost allocation methodology, it is incipient upon the Commission to act upon its stated
`
`intention to “develop a cost allocation method or methods that meets its proposed
`
`requirements.”4 Furthermore, in so doing, the Commission should reject narrowly defined
`
`project categories for cross-border projects based on only a single benefit metric, in favor of
`
`provisions that would allow consideration of all of the types of benefits – whether
`
`economic-, reliability-, or public policy-based – that new transmission projects can provide
`
`when interregional studies are performed. To that end, NIPSCO’s proposed Reforms 3, 4,
`
`and 5 represent possible features of a MISO-PJM interregional cost allocation methodology
`
`3 Alliance Cos., 103 FERC ¶ 61,274 at P 26 (2003) .
`4 Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and
`Operating Public Utilities, Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at P 607 (2011) (“Order
`No. 1000”), order on reh’g, Order No. 1000-A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132, order on reh’g, Order
`No. 1000-B, 141 FERC ¶ 61,044 (2012).
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. EL13-88-000
`
`that would be more consistent with the requirements of Order No. 1000. As already
`
`established in ITC’s initial comments, MISO’s and PJM’s proposals do not fully comply
`
`with Order No. 1000 because they fail to consider all but the most limited types of project
`
`benefits within narrowly-defined project categories for potential interregional transmission
`
`projects.5 NIPSCO’s proposed Reforms 3-5 would provide a single set of criteria for
`
`interregional projects, permit consideration of additional benefit metrics for cross-border
`
`Market Efficiency Projects, and eliminate arbitrary voltage and project cost thresholds.
`
`Although ITC supports a more robust suite of potential project benefits than NIPSCO has
`
`proposed in Reform 4, NIPSCO’s proposal is nonetheless significantly more compliant with
`
`Order No. 1000’s interregional cost allocation principles than either MISO’s or PJM’s
`
`proposals. Cost allocation reform for cross-border projects is imperative to ensure that
`
`effective planning can occur, and while ITC and NIPSCO may differ in their exact positions
`
`on the nature of that reform, ITC nonetheless strongly supports NIPSCO’s general points
`
`that neither MISO nor PJM have proposed an acceptable interregional cost allocation
`
`methodology, and that the Commission must take action to ensure that the failure of the
`
`JOA is not perpetuated and that the goals of Order No. 1000 are realized.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`WHEREFORE, for the reasons discussed herein, the ITC Companies respectfully ask the
`
`Commission to act in manner consistent with the foregoing.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ James W. Bixby
`
`5 ITC Intervention at 9-14.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Docket No. EL13-88-000
`
`October 28, 2013
`
`James W. Bixby
`ITC Holdings Corp.
`1300 I Street N.W.
`Suite 300W
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Attorney for the ITC Companies
`
`- 6 -
`
`