FERC Filings
EPSA's Motion to Intervene Out of Time and Protest New England NESCO
PROTEST
For several years, EPSA has joined the Commission in recognizing the importance of states in fostering competitive wholesale electricity markets. It is imperative that ISOs and RTOs maintain meaningful working relationships with the states since as competitive markets emerge there are several issues that require regional coordination and cooperation, such as resource adequacy and facility planning. A well-functioning RSC will help ensure that all parties work effectively and efficiently together to seek regional solutions on these common goals. An RSC should work in conjunction with the Commission, the RTO and the region’s TOs, but the Commission must be the ultimate arbiter of issues involving wholesale markets and the interstate transmission grid, subject to its jurisdiction.
In several respects, the NESCOE proposal overreaches its jurisdictional responsibilities and seeks powers not supported by the Commission’s policy or the Federal Power Act. As articulated in the protests of NEPOOL and the Edison Electric Institute in the instant proceeding, the Commission must deny the Petitioners’ request for approval of certain market rules and tariff revision rights that would enable NESCOE to infringe on the authority of RTO New England and the TOs. This very authority was denied to the New England Conference of Public Utility Commissioners (NECPUC) in the RTO-NE order. There, the Commission stated, “The FPA grants Section 205 filing rights to public utilities only, and the [NECPUC] Regional State Committee will not be a public utility.” This remains the case for the NESCOE proposal. The NESCOE RSC is not and will not be a public utility, and cannot exert the rights afforded to a public utility under the FPA. Moreover under Atlantic City Electric v. FERC NESCOE cannot compel any particular Section 205 filing by a public utility.
Complicating the NESCOE proposal is that, while the Petitioners outline discrete and acceptable areas of responsibility at the outset of the RSC, they include a provision that allows the RSC to expand its scope of responsibility unilaterally through a unanimous vote of its members. While resource adequacy and system planning and expansion are areas that require a regional approach, the Commission cannot approve unfettered scope for NESCOE based on its own will. Hence, the purview of NESCOE or any RSC must be clearly defined and approved prior to implementation. EPSA urges the New England stakeholders, with guidance from the Commission, to cooperate on a detailed outline of RSC responsibilities and rights that respects the Commission’s RTO-NE guidance as well as the D.C. Circuit’s findings in Atlantic City.
Finally, the NESCOE proposal would require RTO-NE and the TOs to provide the RSC with written notice of their intent to make any additions or changes to market rules or tariff provisions, allowing adequate time for NESCOE to make a determination on the proposal. Such determinations will be submitted to the Commission along with RTO-NE and/or TO proposals. Outside of the Section 205 filing rights at issue here, the RSC is creating another level of regulation and interfering with the RTO stakeholder process.
NESCOE should be an integral part of the stakeholder process but should not impose a regulatory overlay that results in inordinate delays or requirements on the stakeholder process. It is clear that New England market participants and the New England states need to further refine and deliberate on how to structure the region’s State Committee. With guidance from the Commission, this deliberation could go forward concurrent to the continued development of the RTO-NE market structure and design.