`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`BEFORE THE
`FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
`
`
`
`Northern Indiana Public Service Company
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc,
`
`and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Docket No. EL13-88-000
`
`ANSWER OF THE MISO TRANSMISSION OWNERS
`TO SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS OF THE GENERATOR GROUP
`
`Pursuant to Rules 212 and 213 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the
`
`
`
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission” or “FERC”),1 the MISO
`
`Transmission Owners2 submit
`
`this Answer
`
`to
`
`the February 3, 2016 Answer,
`
`
`1
`18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212, 385.213.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`The MISO Transmission Owners for this filing consist of: Ameren Services
`Company, as agent for Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri, Ameren
`Illinois Company d/b/a Ameren Illinois and Ameren Transmission Company of
`Illinois; American Transmission Company LLC; Big Rivers Electric Corporation;
`Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; City Water, Light & Power
`(Springfield, IL); Cleco Power LLC; Dairyland Power Cooperative; Duke Energy
`Business Services, LLC for Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.; East Texas Electric
`Cooperative (“East Texas”); Entergy Arkansas, Inc.; Entergy Louisiana, LLC;
`Entergy Mississippi, Inc.; Entergy New Orleans, Inc.; Entergy Texas, Inc.; Great
`River Energy; Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Indiana
`Municipal Power Agency; MidAmerican Energy Company; Minnesota Power
`(and its subsidiary Superior Water, L&P); Missouri River Energy Services;
`Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.; Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota
`corporation, and Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation,
`subsidiaries of Xcel Energy Inc.; Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Company;
`Otter Tail Power Company; Prairie Power Inc.; Southern Illinois Power
`Cooperative; Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company (d/b/a Vectren Energy
`Delivery of Indiana); Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; Wabash
`Valley Power Association, Inc.; and Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
`
`With the exception of East Texas, each of the MISO Transmission Owners has
`intervened in Docket No. EL13-88 either as part of the MISO Transmission
`Owners’ October 31, 2013 Motion to Intervene and Comments, or through other
`motions to intervene. The MISO Transmission Owners request any waivers
`deemed necessary to allow East Texas to participate in this answer.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Supplemental Comments and Request for Deadline of EDP Renewables North America
`
`LLC, E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, LLC, and Hoosier Wind Project,
`
`LLC (a subsidiary of EDF Renewable Energy, Inc.) (collectively, the “Generator
`
`Group”),3 filed in this docket and two other proceedings.4
`
`I.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This proceeding arises out of a complaint filed on September 11, 2013 by
`
`Northern Indiana Public Service Company concerning certain aspects of the interregional
`
`transmission planning process under the Joint Operating Agreement (“JOA”) between the
`
`Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) and PJM Interconnection,
`
`L.L.C. (“PJM”).5 On December 19, 2013, the Commission issued an order holding the
`
`complaint in abeyance pending the outcome of the MISO and PJM Order No. 10006
`
`
`3
`Answer, Supplemental Comments and Request for December 1, 2016 Deadline of
`Generator Group, Docket Nos. ER16-488-000, ER16-490-000, EL13-88-000
`(Feb. 3, 2015) (“Deadline Request”).
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`This response to the Generator Group is consistent with Rule 213 because Rule
`213 does not preclude answers to comments, and the Generator Group
`characterized the Deadline Request as “Supplemental Comments” as to Docket
`No. EL13-88. Deadline Request at 1. However, to the extent necessary, the
`MISO Transmission Owners request waiver of the general prohibition against
`answers to answers contained in Rule 213(a)(2), 18 C.F.R. § 385.213(a)(2), to
`allow this response. The Commission has granted waiver of this prohibition
`when, as here, the answer will help clarify the issues before the Commission and
`assist the Commission in its decision-making. See, e.g., Entergy Servs., Inc., 154
`FERC ¶ 61,035, at P 72 (2016); Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 153
`FERC ¶ 61,371, at P 35 (2015).
`
`Complaint of Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Docket No. EL13-88-
`000 (Sept. 11, 2013).
`
`Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and
`Operating Public Utilities, Order No. 1000, 2008–2013 FERC Stats. & Regs.,
`Regs. Preambles ¶ 31,323 (2011), order on reh’g & clarification, Order No.
`1000-A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132, order on reh’g & clarification, Order No. 1000-B,
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`interregional compliance filings and other proceedings. 7 The Commission issued a later
`
`order that granted the complaint and found it raised issues that warranted further
`
`investigation, and ordered a technical conference be held.8
`
`
`
`On December 9, 2015, PJM and MISO filed in Docket Nos. ER16-488 and ER16-
`
`490 respectively, to amend the JOA to eliminate the requirement that an Interregional
`
`Market Efficiency Project cost at least $20 million.9 On February 3, 2016, the Generator
`
`Group filed the Deadline Request in Docket Nos. ER16-488, ER16-490, and EL13-88,
`
`complaining that the provisions regarding Market Efficiency Projects (“MEP”) under the
`
`MISO Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff
`
`(“Tariff”) are impeding the development of new transmission in MISO and interregional
`
`transmission projects between MISO and PJM.10
`
` While acknowledging
`
`that
`
`modifications to the MEP qualification criteria are being considered as part of the MISO
`
`stakeholder process,11 the Generator Group requested that the Commission impose a
`
`
`141 FERC ¶ 61,044 (2012), aff’d sub nom. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762
`F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2014), reh’g denied en banc, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19968
`(D.C. Cir. Oct. 17, 2014).
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 145 FERC
`¶ 61,256, at P 21 (2013).
`
`N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 149 FERC
`¶ 61,248, at P 35 (2014). The technical conference was held June 15, 2015. See
`N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Notice of
`Technical Conference, Docket No. EL13-88-000 (May 5, 2015).
`
`Filing of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Docket No. ER16-488-000 (Dec. 9, 2015);
`Proposed Modifications to Section 9.4.4.1.2 of the MISO-PJM Joint Operating
`Agreement
`re Criteria for
`Interregional Market Efficiency Projects of
`Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-490-000
`(Dec. 9, 2015).
`
`Deadline Request at 7.
`
`Id.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`December 1, 2016 deadline for MISO to file Tariff changes revising the MEP criteria.12
`
`The Generator Group also stated that the Commission should require MISO to adopt
`
`certain specific Tariff revisions, including lowering the MEP voltage threshold, revising
`
`the MEP benefits-to-costs ratio, expanding the benefits scope, and addressing all other
`
`cost allocation and process alignment issues to facilitate later revisions to the JOA.13
`
`
`
`On February 5, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket Nos. ER16-488
`
`and ER16-490, accepting the proposed JOA revisions, subject to the outcome of other
`
`proceedings.14 With respect to the Deadline Request, the Commission stated the
`
`Deadline Request “included supplemental comments in Docket No. EL13-88-000, which
`
`as noted below are beyond the scope of this proceeding.”15 Because the Commission
`
`dismissed the Deadline Request as to Docket Nos. ER16-488 and ER16-490, the MISO
`
`Transmission Owners are addressing these comments to Docket No. EL13-88 only.
`
`II.
`
`THE COMMISSION SHOULD DENY THE DEADLINE REQUEST AND
`ALLOW THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS TO CONTINUE
`
`
`
`The MISO Transmission Owners are not taking a position in this answer with
`
`respect to the underlying issues, including the interregional transmission planning
`
`process, in Docket No. EL13-88 or what the outcome of the stakeholder process
`
`considering changes to the MEP criteria should be. However, the MISO Transmission
`
`Owners oppose any attempt to impose a hard deadline on the stakeholder process. At its
`
`most recent stakeholder meeting addressing these issues, MISO put forward a specific
`
`12
`Id. at 2, 9.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`
`
`Id. at 10. For purposes of this response, the MISO Transmission Owners take no
`position on what revisions should be adopted.
`
`PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 154 FERC ¶ 61,083, at PP 9-10 (2016).
`
`Id. at 5 n.12.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`timetable for the stakeholder process, including the timing of a filing with the
`
`Commission and a target effective date for any changes that are filed.16 MISO has thus
`
`recognized the need to bring the stakeholder process to a conclusion within a reasonable
`
`period and has put forth a target date to complete the process. Given the importance of a
`
`vigorous stakeholder process to consider revisions to the MEP criteria, the Commission
`
`should reject the Deadline Request and not impose an artificial or constraining deadline
`
`on the MISO stakeholder process that is evaluating changes to the planning criteria and
`
`cost allocation.
`
`
`
`As the Generator Group describes in the Deadline Request,17 MISO is engaged
`
`with its stakeholders in considering possible revisions to the MEP criteria under its Tariff.
`
`MEPs are projects that have been found to meet certain criteria and thus are subject to
`
`some level of regional cost allocation.18 Cost allocation and the definition of what types
`
`of projects are subject to regional cost allocation are often contentious issues, with
`
`numerous stakeholders having divergent and conflicting positions.
`
` Numerous
`
`stakeholders are involved, and information provided at a recent stakeholder meeting
`
`indicates that MISO received feedback from fifteen sets of parties concerning potential
`
`revisions to its MEP criteria and other cost allocation issues.19 Resolution of cost
`
`
`16
`Regional Expansion Criteria & Benefits Task Force, Cost Allocation Issue
`Prioritization
`10
`(Feb.
`16,
`2016),
`https://www.misoenergy.org/_layouts/MISO/ECM/Redirect.aspx?ID=218177.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`Deadline Request at 7.
`
`Tariff, Module A § II.1.M, Definitions – M (definition of Market Efficiency
`Projects), Attachment FF § III.A.2.f (describing cost allocation for MEPs).
`
`Regional Expansion Criteria & Benefits Task Force, Cost Allocation Issues Paper
`Feedback
`Summary
`by
`Stakeholder
`2
`(Nov.
`2,
`2015),
`https://www.misoenergy.org/_layouts/MISO/ECM/Redirect.aspx?ID=211244;
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`allocation issues is often time consuming, and such issues are best resolved through a
`
`vigorous process that allows the stakeholders to explore options and solutions. Imposing
`
`an artificial deadline is unlikely to be helpful, and may prevent the development of a
`
`compromise or more widely supported solution.
`
`
`
`Additionally, rather than simply asking for a deadline, the Generator Group is
`
`asking for specific Tariff changes, showing that their intent is to impose a particular set of
`
`solutions, regardless of what revisions are developed through the stakeholder process.20
`
`In other instances, the Commission has rejected attempts to short-circuit the stakeholder
`
`process.21 In order to support this stakeholder process, the Commission should deny the
`
`Deadline Request, and allow the stakeholder process to continue.
`
`
`Regional Expansion Criteria & Benefits Task Force, Stakeholder Feedback on
`Cost
`Allocation
`Issue
`Paper
`2-3
`(Nov.
`12,
`2015),
`https://www.misoenergy.org/_layouts/MISO/ECM/Redirect.aspx?ID=211686.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`
`
`Deadline Request at 10 (indicating that the Commission should require MISO to
`file Tariff changes by December 1, 2016 that lower the MEP voltage to 138 kV,
`expand the MEP benefits scope, revise the MEP benefit-to-cost ratio, and address
`other cost allocation issues).
`
` FirstEnergy Sols. Corp. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 138 FERC ¶ 61,158, at P
`45-47, order on reh’g, 140 FERC ¶ 61,051, at PP 9, 12 (2012) (“PJM has not
`completed its stakeholder processes that may well resolve this issue.”); see also
`New England Power Generators Ass’n v. ISO New England Inc., 150 FERC
`¶ 61,053, at P 43 (denying request that the Commission “pre-empt the orderly
`unfolding of [the stakeholder] process”), reh’g denied, 153 FERC ¶ 61,222
`(2015); ISO New England Inc., 147 FERC ¶ 61,109, at P 23 (2014) (rejecting
`tariff changes that would effectively allow ISO New England to circumvent the
`stakeholder process for revisions of the Offer Review Trigger Price).
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Matthew T. Brown
`Matthew T. Brown
`Entergy Services, Inc.
`Chair of the Owners Committee
`
`On behalf of the
`MISO Transmission Owners
`
`
`February 22, 2016
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each person
`
`designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.
`
`Dated at Washington, D.C., this 22nd day of February, 2016.
`
`/s/ Matthew T, Brown
`Matthew T. Brown
`
`On behalf of the
`MISO Transmission Owners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`