FERC Filings
EPSA's Request for Clarification or Rehearing on Reporting Requirement for Changes In Status for Public Utilities with Market-Based Rate Authority
Clarity on Reportable Arrangements
In the rule, the Commission does provide some guidance as to a change in status that would trigger a report to the Commission. However, for sellers to adequately comply, they need greater clarity in each category of reportable arrangement listed.
1. Are cumulative increases in generation gross or net increases?
The Commission rule asserts that, “market-based sellers must report as a change in status each cumulative increase in generation of 100 megawatts (MW) or more that has occurred since the most recent notice of change in status filed by that seller.” However, competitive generators routinely increase and decrease capacity on a going-forward basis by mothballing, retiring or decreasing existing capacity. Further, a marketer may have long-term purchase contracts that expire during the same time period that it enters into new long-term contracts. Such capacity decreases, associated with changes in generation capacity or expiration of capacity under long-term purchase contracts should be netted against generation capacity increases in triggering the 100 MW capacity increase. The Commission should not consider only increases and the Commission should so clarify.
2. Does the seller have control over such arrangements such that the arrangement must be reported?
The final rule adopted the inclusion of control as one of the factors that could result in a change in status filing. The Commission said that “’control’ refers to arrangements, contractual or otherwise, granting control of generation or transmission facilities, just as effectively as they could through ownership.” The Commission added that if an applicant has control over certain capacity such that the applicant can affect the ability of the capacity to reach the relevant market, then that capacity should be attributed to the applicant when performing generation market screens. The Commission also stated that it has outlined with adequate specificity as to what constitutes control and refused to further define or narrow the definition, noting that “control of assets is a concept that this industry has dealt with for many years.”
EPSA disagrees that the term “control” does not need further definition and seeks Commission clarification. There are many different types of commercial arrangements in the industry. The Commission should clarify that in order for an entity to have “control” under such arrangements it must have the ability to take more than ministerial actions under the arrangements. Specifically, for an entity to have control, it must have full decision-making authority over the capacity reaching the relevant market under a particular arrangement. The Commission should so clarify.