Duke Energy (NYSE:DUK) and Progress Energy (NYSE:PGN) provided details addressing FERC’s concerns about the comprehensiveness of their revised merger mitigation plan, including managing and utilizing system transmission (MUST) study results for the three balancing authority areas (BAA) in which they operate.
FERC on April 10 asked the companies to provide more detail on transmission models used in their revised plan, as they appeared to differ from the models used in their original merger application.
“In addition to the changes associated with the seven mitigation projects and the Greenville-Kinston-DuPont 230-kV line, the transmission models submitted in the March 26 compliance filing included certain changes … that reflect changes in modeling data and projected system operating conditions since the time that the merger application was filed on April 4, 2011,” the companies said in their response to FERC, submitted April 13. “None of these changes affect the [simultaneous import limit (SIL)] assumptions that were used in the merger application, as they do not affect the limit that determines the SILs prior to transmission expansion, but only the effectiveness of the expansion projects.”
Among other details provided in the April 13 filing, Duke Energy and Progress Energy also included MUST study results for the three BAAs in which they operate – Carolina Power & Light – East, Carolina Power & Light – West and Duke Energy.
The companies did not include these in their compliance filing because not all three BAAs experienced market screen failures, they said.
“For example, the applicants did not perform a MUST study for the [Carolina Power & Light – West (CPLW)] BAA because there are no screen violations in that BAA and none of the transmission projects are designed to increase import capacity into the CPLW BAA,” they said.
The MUST study performed for the Carolina Power & Light – East (CPLE) BAA winter and shoulder periods covered only the first three transmission projects described in the companies’ March 26 compliance filing as they themselves resolved the winter period screen failures. However, the MUST study for the CPLE BAA summer period presented in the March 26 compliance filing included all seven expansion projects and the Greenville-Kinston-Dupont line, the companies said.
For the Duke BAA, there was only one transmission project in the area that did not require a new study, they said.
Duke Energy and Progress Energy requested that FERC provide for a shortened comment period that adopts the same April 25 comment date that was applied to the March 26 compliance filing, and renewed their request for the commission to issue an order approving that compliance plan within 60 days of its filing, but no later than June 8.