FERC Filings
MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PROTEST OF ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION-Entergy Services, Inc.-Docket No. RT01-75-000
2. Section 205 Filing Rights
Order No. 2000 states that “RTOs, in order to ensure their independence from market participants, must have the independent and exclusive right to make Section 205 filings that apply to the rates, terms and conditions of transmission services operated by the RTO.” The Commission clarified that it is reasonable for transmission owners to retain certain Section 205 filing rights apart from the RTO. These rights are limited, however, to “the level of revenue requirement that the transmission owners receive from the RTO and that the RTO, in turn, will collect from the transmission customers through its rates.” Furthermore, the Commission clearly stated that transmission owners “will not be permitted to make Section 205 filings for RTO services to transmission customers and will not interfere with the independence of the RTO to file proposed changes to the open access tariff.”
Entergy is proposing to circumvent Order No. 2000 by retaining Section 205 filing rights over its transmission facilities that exceed its right to file for an increased revenue requirement. Entergy’s proposal that “[t]he SPP and Transco will share the right to propose rates, terms and conditions under Section 205 for transmission service on the Transco’s and SPP’s systems,” contradicts the Commission’s “exclusive and independent” RTO requirement pronounced in Order No. 2000. The proposal to share Section 205 filing rights permits the Transco to retain sole decisional authority by effectively removing the rate-making discretion from the SPP RTO and giving the Transco the power to unilaterally control the rates of transmission over the facilities located within its control area. EPSA contends that such decisional authority should instead be within the sole discretion of the RTO, and requests that the Commission clarify that this requirement applies equally to a Transco operating under an RTO umbrella structure, the same as any other transmission owner.
Moreover, Entergy suggests that the Transco have the right to “propose rate or rate structure changes for transmission charges to load within the Transco grid and to make filings at FERC to implement new transmission services that are not contained in the SPP tariff.” Entergy does not, however, provide for oversight or approval of the Transco’s rate changes by the SPP RTO. Rather, it simply provides for notice to be given to the RTO that such a filing will be made. It is not clear from Entergy’s proposal whether it intends for the SPP RTO to have the authority to reject the Transco rate filing prior to its being filed at FERC. While Entergy’s Transco should be permitted to propose rate or tariff changes as an SPP member, EPSA requests that the Commission reject Entergy’s proposal to reserve unilateral authority to change its rates and rate design and confirm that SPP RTO has the ultimate decision-making authority over the rates and tariff for transmission facilities in its region.
Furthermore, the Transco’s unilateral control over the transmission facilities in its control area serves to reinforce the operational boundary between the proposed Transco and the SPP RTO, simultaneously fostering the continued balkanization of the region. While the RTO may delegate certain of its authorities to control area operators, it must still retain oversight and final decisional authority over the requirements mandated by Order No. 2000. The transco should be permitted no more operational control or planning authority than any other transmission owner participating in the RTO. EPSA urges the Commission to require Entergy’s Transco to commit its facilities to the SPP RTO. Entergy cannot have it both ways – have its Transco not qualify as an RTO while the Transco retains an impermissible level of control.