In re Sw. Power Pool, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | ER22-1719-001 |
| Citation | 181 FERC ¶ 61, 053 |
| Parties | Southwest Power Pool, Inc. |
| Court | Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
Before Commissioners: Richard Glick, Chairman; James P. Danly Allison Clements, Mark C. Christie, and Willie L. Phillips.
ORDER ADDRESSING ARGUMENTS RAISED ON REHEARING AND GRANTING CLARIFICATION, IN PART
Richard Glick, Chairman
1. On June 28, 2022, the Commission issued an order accepting revisions to Southwest Power Pool, Inc.'s (SPP) Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff) to establish an annual process for each transmission pricing zone to develop a single set of uniform planning criteria, called Zonal Planning Criteria,[1] that SPP would use to evaluate the need for Zonal Reliability Upgrades[2] in SPP's regional transmission planning process.[3] Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) and GridLiance High Plains LLC (GridLiance) each filed requests for rehearing, or in the alternative clarification,[4] of the June 2022 Order, and Indicated SPP Transmission Owners (Indicated SPP TOs,[5] and collectively with OG&E and GridLiance, Petitioners) filed a request for rehearing, alternative requests for clarification, and request for expedited action.
2. Pursuant to Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC, [6] the rehearing requests filed in this proceeding may be deemed denied by operation of law. However, as permitted by section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),[7] we are modifying the discussion in the June 2022 Order and continue to reach the same result in this proceeding, as discussed below.[8] We also grant clarification in part, and deny clarification in part, as discussed below.
3. SPP's footprint originally comprised 15 transmission pricing zones (zones)[9] with 15 individual transmission revenue requirements. As the SPP region has expanded and its membership has grown, the number of zones has increased to 18, with roughly 50 separate revenue requirements.[10]
4. Zonal Reliability Upgrades are planned for under SPP's regional transmission planning process and the costs of these upgrades are allocated to all customers in the relevant zone. However, prior to the Tariff revisions accepted in the June 2022 Order, SPP identified the need for these upgrades based on potential reliability violations driven by the individual transmission owners' company-specific local transmission planning criteria (or local planning criteria).[11] SPP first developed this process for identifying Zonal Reliability Upgrades in connection with its compliance with Order No. 890.[12]Order No. 890 required that transmission providers, such as SPP, participate in a coordinated, open, and transparent planning process on both a local and regional level.[13] Although SPP conducts local transmission planning for most of the participating transmission owners in its footprint,[14] the Commission in Order No. 890 required independent system operators (ISO) and regional transmission organizations (RTOs) to indicate how all participating transmission owners within their footprint will comply with the Order No. 890 planning requirements.[15]
5. According to SPP, using individual transmission owners' local planning criteria to identify Zonal Reliability Upgrades has led to confusion and other issues in zones that are comprised of multiple transmission owners, and thus have multiple potentially conflicting sets of local planning criteria. In particular, SPP cited the potential for transmission owners to establish criteria that would identify upgrades that solely or disproportionately benefit only a portion of the load in a zone at the expense of all load in the zone.[16]
A. SPP's 2020 Filing
6. In 2020, SPP proposed Tariff revisions to establish a process for developing uniform Zonal Planning Criteria in each zone to evaluate the need for Zonal Reliability Upgrades in lieu of using transmission owners' local planning criteria. The Commission rejected SPP's proposal, finding that SPP had not demonstrated that the proposed Tariff revisions were just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.[17] In particular, the Commission found that SPP's proposal to permit the network customer with the largest total network load in the zone to designate a transmission owner (Facilitating Transmission Owner) with sole authority to develop the criteria to apply to the entire zone raised concerns that the Facilitating Transmission Owner could exercise both: (1) undue preference by selecting criteria that would address its own local reliability needs (with the costs of the upgrades allocated to all customers in the zone); and (2) undue discrimination by preventing the local reliability needs of other transmission owners in the zone from being considered.[18] The Commission also found the proposal to be unduly discriminatory because SPP, as the independent entity administering the regional transmission planning process, had not proposed to take a role in ensuring the consideration of input from other transmission owners and customers in the zones during the development of the Zonal Planning Criteria.[19]
B. SPP's 2022 Filing
7. In April 2022, SPP again submitted a proposal to establish a process for each zone to develop a single set of uniform Zonal Planning Criteria.[20] SPP's 2022 Filing reflected additional revisions to address the Commission's findings in the 2020 Order. Although SPP continued to propose that the network customer with the largest total network load in the zone each year would designate a Facilitating Transmission Owner to be responsible for facilitating the development of the Zonal Planning Criteria for that zone, the proposal included a process for transmission owners and customers to submit proposed Zonal Planning Criteria, interested parties to be able to comment on proposed and final draft Zonal Planning Criteria, and transmission owners and customers to participate in a two-step voting process to approve any Zonal Planning Criteria.[21]
C. June 2022 Order
8. In the June 2022 Order, the Commission found that SPP had shown that the proposed Tariff revisions were just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential and accepted SPP's proposal, effective June 29, 2022.[22] In particular, the Commission found that SPP's proposed process would allow for the collaborative development of Zonal Planning Criteria in zones that are comprised of multiple transmission owners and addressed the confusion and potential inequities that could arise from using multiple sets of local planning criteria for the same zone to identify Zonal Reliability Upgrades in a just and reasonable manner.[23]
D. Requests for Rehearing and Clarification
9. On rehearing, Petitioners primarily revive arguments raised in their initial pleadings. Generally, Petitioners express concerns that: (1) SPP's two-step voting process for approving proposed Zonal Planning Criteria permits small transmission customers to block the adoption of proposed criteria, contrary to precedent and Order No. 890; (2) using SPP's regional planning criteria as a back-up when zones cannot agree on Zonal Planning Criteria and allowing transmission owners to use their own local planning criteria (but directly assigning the costs of any identified facilities) both violate the cost causation principle; (3) exempting Zone 19 from the Zonal Planning Criteria development process is unduly discriminatory; (4) SPP abdicated its role in the Zonal Planning Criteria development process and did not comply with the requirements of Order Nos. 1000 and 2000 regarding its responsibility for transmission planning; and (5) the June 29, 2022 effective date for the Tariff revisions imposes compliance and implementation burdens.
10. On August 12, 2022, SPP filed a motion for leave to answer and answer in response to the requests for rehearing and clarification. Joint Commenters[24] submitted an answer and OG&E submitted a motion for leave to answer and answer to SPP's motion for leave to answer on August 22, 2022 and August 26, 2022, respectively. Rule 713(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R § 385.713(d)(1) (2021), prohibits an answer to a request for rehearing. Accordingly, we deny the motions for leave to answer and reject the answers.
11. As explained below, we continue to find that SPP met its burden under FPA section 205[25] to demonstrate that the Tariff revisions are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. SPP proposed the revisions to its existing Commission-approved transmission planning process to address issues it had identified with the process for identifying Zonal Reliability Upgrades, consistent with the Order No. 890 transmission planning principles of openness, transparency, and coordination.26[]In the June 2022 Order, the Commission acknowledged that SPP's prior process for identifying Zonal Reliability Upgrades "could lead to confusion and potential inequities because zones with multiple transmission owners can have multiple sets of local planning criteria for the same zone that are then used to identify Zonal Reliability Upgrades," and found that SPP's proposed Zonal Planning Criteria development process would address these concerns in a just and reasonable manner.27[]
12. We continue to find the Tariff revisions accepted in the June 2022 Order to be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and we are not persuaded by Petitioners' continued assertions to the contrary. In particular, as discussed in section II.B.1, we find that SPP's proposed two-step voting process for approving Zonal Planning Criteria provides a just and reasonable mechanism for parties to achieve...
To continue reading
Request your trial