FERC Filings
MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PROTEST OF THE ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION -GridFlorida LLC, Florida Power & Light Co.,Florida Power Corporation,Tampa Electric Co.-Docket No. RT01-67-000
B. The role of Transco’s in operating markets and the “single-state” problem
EPSA supports the establishment of independent for-profit transmission companies. However, EPSA urges the Commission to carefully consider whether its actions or policies create disincentives to generation divestiture. The implementation of RTO structures and policies must make asset transfer an attractive alternative for today’s vertically integrated utilities. As explained above, EPSA is troubled by the prospects of a for-profit Transco exercising authority over market policy and design. Establishing a fundamental obligation to maximize the value of the transmission owners’ assets within the governance structure raises serious concerns about the neutrality of the decision-making process in developing a congestion management scheme or a real-time balancing market. This concern is heightened by the Applicants’ deferral of the details associated with its congestion management plan and market operations. EPSA urges the Commission to carefully consider this inherent tension when assessing GridFlorida’s responsibility for the market development process.
EPSA’s concerns are heightened by the single-state nature of GridFlorida’s proposal and by the filing of three separate RTO proposals in what is arguably one southeastern United States market. While the GridFlorida proposal has some promising features, including the requirement that all native load be served under the same pricing provisions as other market participants and the use of a hybrid approach to congestion management, the Commission should look carefully at whether small and balkanize markets serve Order No. 2000’s goal of enhancing competitive markets. In this regard, EPSA reiterates its request that the Commission consider establishing a separate, independent organization to develop market rules, which would then be implemented by the RTO, when a Transco is functioning as the RTO (rather than under an “RTO umbrella”).
In addition, the Commission will need to impose a role for the Compliance Auditor beyond its intended function of reviewing Board independence. If the Transco is
going to run markets, even if those markets are limited to real-time balancing, the current Section 206 complaint process will be insufficient to protect market participants from potentially discriminatory conduct by the Transco. The Commission should require quarterly or semi-annually reporting on RTO compliance with market rules by an independent Compliance Auditor.