FERC Filings
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND PROTEST OF THE ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION re AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY AND UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY D/B/A AMEREN UE
INTRODUCTION
Ameren Energy Generating Company
and
Union Electric Company
d/b/a AmerenUE
Docket No. EC03-53-000
Pursuant to Rules 212 and 214 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission), 18 C.F.R. §§ 212 and 214, the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) hereby moves for leave to intervene and protests the above-captioned Application by Ameren Energy Generating Company (AEG) for approval to transfer certain jurisdictional facilities from AEG, an exempt wholesale generator, to Union Electric Company (AmerenUE), a public utility operating company affiliate of AEG and subsidiary of Ameren Corporation (Ameren Corp.).
This is the second recent filing of its type. The Commission is no doubt aware that more such filings are being contemplated by utilities in the Midwest and elsewhere. Consistent with its recent statements in Cinergy, the Commission should reject AEG and AmerenUE’s Application until such time as AmerenUE and AEG (collectively, Ameren or the Applicants) demonstrate, through record evidence, that their proposal is more reliable, efficient and economical, or otherwise offers a better deal for AmerenUE’s ratepayers than other competitive options. Otherwise, it cannot be said that the contemplated transaction is in the public interest. Moreover, it is equally obvious that the Application cannot be said to be in the public interest unless the Applicants can show that AmerenUE’s purchase of these unregulated assets is in the best interest of its ratepayers. But the only way to make this showing would require AmerenUE to conduct a transparent competitive solicitation for its requirements or otherwise to use “benchmark” evidence to this effect. Since, however, the Applicants have adduced neither type of evidence, their Application should be rejected.
The plain and simple fact is that were AmerenUE to enter into a power purchase agreement (PPA) with its affiliate, AEG, for as little as one year, this transaction would not pass Commission muster absent its passing a market test. Surely, the instant Application, which in economic terms is at least the equivalent of a life-of-unit PPA between affiliates, absent persuasive evidence that it passed a market test, should fare no better. Indeed, analytically there should be no difference between how the Commission analyzes the instant Application and how it would analyze a long-term PPA between affiliates. EPSA respectfully submits that under any fair reading of the Commission’s precedents, the instant Application would fail.