FERC Filings
EPSA's Motion For Leave to Intervene and Comment on Entergy Services Inc.
Introduction and Summary
In December 2003, Entergy and the other sponsors announced that the SeTrans RTO 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.” On March 31, 2004, Entergy responded by filing to change its OATT, including a proposal to create an ICT to oversee and operate its transmission system. This filing resulted in the Commission and state regulators convening three technical conferences in states in which Entergy operates. Initially, these conferences focused on whether or not Entergy should pursue the ICT or join the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) RTO; however, over time the merits of the ICT proposal became the primary focus of the discussion. While EPSA still prefers Entergy’s membership in SPP RTO for the reasons listed in its June 30, 2004 filing in Docket No. ER04-699-000, in the absence of Entergy’s inviting a Commission-approved RTO there needs to be independent administration of Entergy’s transmission system.
The instant comments will only address Entergy’s ICT proposal petition and proposed OATT revisions, rather than the preferable RTO option (SPP or otherwise). EPSA’s concerns with the initial ICT proposal centered on specific proposed tariff changes that would undermine the ICT’s independence. The proposal now reflects functions that stakeholders suggested should be independent functions administered by an ICT, not Entergy. While the current petition’s proposed enhancements address some concerns, the ICT will not be sufficiently independent if it is not FERC jurisdictional and without that independence, the proposal enhancements are not helpful or viable. Hence, EPSA can support the ICT enhancements only if the ICT remains FERC jurisdictional and is adequately independent.
Further, as proposed, the ICT cannot impartially implement Entergy’s transmission pricing proposal, nor can the Commission monitor compliance. Hence, there is no certainty that non-Entergy parties can invest in transmission expansion and receive just and reasonable treatment in a non-discriminatory manner under Entergy’s current pricing proposal. Additionally, many aspects of Entergy’s proposed transmission planning and pricing protocols do not comply with the Commission’s Order No. 2003-B and will deter transmission investment, regardless of the ICT’s existence. Therefore the Commission should reject Entergy’s pricing proposal unless it can be conditioned to comply with the Commission’s pricing policy.