FERC Filings
COMPLAINT CONCERNING ALLOCATION OF SYSTEM UPGRADE FACILITY COSTS
THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER THIS COMPLAINT ON THE MERITS
The issues raised by this Complaint do not turn on whether one party accepted or rejected its allocation as a member of the Class of 2001. NYPA and individual firms represented by both IPPNY and EPSA are involved in the NYISO’s cost allocation as members of the Class of 2001. Additionally, Ravenswood has been a member of the Class of 2001 and was assigned to the Class of 2002 by the NYISO.
In any event, the issues raised in this Complaint affect all developers whether they have a project in the Class of 2001 or a later year. With respect to project developers which are not members of the Class of 2001, the principles at issue in this proceeding will affect cost allocation to developers of new generation projects. Complainants, either directly or through members of the two trade associations, will bear the financial consequences of the decision in this case, both as to the Class Year 2001 allocation and in future years as well. The NYISO has asserted that its interpretation of Attachment S is correct and, as a result, there is no reason to expect the NYISO to change its method of allocation. Even with regard to the updating of data issue, the NYISO has indicated a general reluctance to update its data. Thus, allocation of costs to parties which are members of a later class year will be subject to the same erroneous approach taken in connection with the Class of 2001. Therefore, the issues raised in this Complaint are appropriate for the Commission’s consideration at this time.
Finally, members of a post-2001 class will be subject to paying a portion of the cost allocation to members of the current Class through transfer payments mandated by the Tariff. Under Attachment S, when a project developer in an earlier class year accepts a cost allocation for a system upgrade facility that creates electrical capacity in excess of the electrical capacity actually used by such developer’s project, that developer is entitled to collect payments from developers in later class years for the headroom thus created if a developer in a later class year uses such headroom. If an individual project developer is in such a later class year, it will be difficult to challenge the correctness of the allocation which will have already been accepted by a member of the Class of 2001. Thus, the impact on Complainants of the errors in the Cost Allocation Report for the Class of 2001 will not disappear simply because a developer is assigned to a later class year and this Complaint is being made at the most appropriate time that a project developer can challenge whether the 2001 cost allocation was performed correctly.