FERC Filings
Motion of EPSA for Leave to Intervene and Comment on an Entergy Independent Coordinator of Transmission
II. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
In a December 2, 2003 press release, Entergy and the other sponsors announced that the SeTrans effort was being suspended due to a lack of regulatory support, concluding that, “it is highly unlikely that consensus support and acceptance for the SeTrans RTO will be forthcoming from all applicable state and federal agencies.” Entergy has responded to the demise of SeTrans by proposing a number of tariff changes, including proposing creation of an ICT to oversee and operate its transmission system. This filing was clearly premature, as the Commission recognized on May 12, 2004, when it granted the Arkansas Public Service Commission’s (PSC) request for extension of time to file comments. It does not make sense for Entergy to pursue a stand-alone ICT proposal when the PSC has said that it cannot sign off on a stand-alone Entergy ICT proposal until it has conducted its study of that proposal along with an alternative proposal – an Entergy-SPP RTO. Unfortunately, the ICT filing has become yet another procedural move by Entergy that creates tension between its wholesale and retail regulators and stalls real progress on the development of a competitive wholesale electricity market in the Southeast.
Integrating Entergy and SPP is an attractive option considering that the SPP RTO, which Entergy once wanted to be part of, is much further along in its development than Entergy’s ICT. SPP’s transition proposal to a fully competitive wholesale electricity market received the Commission’s conditional RTO approval on March 15, 2004. Additionally, SPP’s Regional State Committee (RSC) has the general support of its state regulators, while Entergy’s ICT has no such support. Therefore, the Commission should order Entergy into SPP and reject the proposed tariff changes filed in this proceeding. In the alternative, the Commission should closely scrutinize Entergy’s numerous proposals, including the ICT, and condition those proposals so that they may function as interim steps to full participation in an RTO.
Should the Commission decide to consider Entergy’s ICT proposal as an interim mechanism, EPSA has several concerns about the proposed tariff changes. There are three primary areas where the proposal fails to meet the Commission’s Order No. 2000 objectives which should, in turn, lead the Commission to reject the filing or clearly and extensively condition the proposal to resolve these concerns in a timely manner and ensure mitigation of Entergy’s market power. The flawed areas of the proposal include:
• The ICT is not independent of Entergy’s influence and thus unlikely to be in a postion to make impartial decisions. The ICT’s responsibilities are largely advisory, with executive responsibility in regard to reliability matters only;
• The proposed tariff’s transmission planning and pricing protocols do not comply with Order No. 2003-A, and represent a threat to just and reasonable treatment of transmission expansion investments by non-Entergy parties’
• Entergy’s market power is maintained rather than mitigated by the ICT’s lack of independence or adequate market structure.
Therefore, the Commission should reject the filing or condition it on these fundamental flaws being corrected expeditiously, such that Entergy’s ultimate inclusion in the SPP RTO is not unduly delayed any further.