FERC Filings
EPSA's Motion For Leave to Intervene and Comment on Entergy Services Inc.
Preface
Pursuant to Sections 211 and 214 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission), 18 C.F.R. § 385.211 and 214, the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) files this motion for leave to intervene and comment in the above-captioned proceeding. On January 3, 2005, Entergy filed a Petition for Declaratory Order requesting guidance on issues associated with Entergy’s enhanced proposal to establish an Independent Coordinator of Transmission (ICT). The petition seeks the Commission’s guidance about whether the functions performed by the ICT will cause it to become a public utility under the Federal Power Act (FPA) or the transmission provider under Entergy’s OATT. Entergy also seeks Commission input on whether or not an ICT-administered pricing proposal satisfies the Commission’s transmission pricing policy. Additionally, Entergy has included proposed enhancements in answer to stakeholder input from the Docket No. ER04-699-000 technical conferences.
Anything short of an independent Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) makes the Commission’s consideration of the many broad issues before it critical to the formation of efficient competitive electric markets in the Southeast. Beyond the Commission’s consideration of the ICT there are many active Entergy proceedings that play a critical part in the formation of a workable competitive market. These proceedings include the Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC), Generator Imbalance Service (GIS) and Weekly Procurement Process (WPP) and market-based rate authority. When combined with Entergy integration into the SPP RTO and other surrounding regions, the Commission’s decisions in any individual proceeding carry with it broad and far reaching implications for the Southeast. Consequently, the Commission cannot consider the ICT solely on its own merits but must evaluate it in the greater scheme of Southeast markets and Entergy’s many related proceedings.
The ICT proposal alone in its current form, despite changes, does not fulfill the concept of an entity that can ensure non-discriminatory competitive wholesale electricity markets in the Southeast. The linchpin of any independent transmission administrator must be true independence from the incumbent utility. An ICT that is not FERC jurisdictional and does not administer Entergy’s system will not be truly independent and cannot provide open and non-discriminatory transmission service or effectively administer the proposed transmission pricing proposal. The Commission should approve the ICT enhancements on the condition that the entity is FERC jurisdictional so that it exhibits the requisite independence. Additionally, the Commission should reject Entergy’s pricing proposal as written, or condition the proposal on compliance with the Commission’s pricing policy.