The tug-of-war between the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and the Midwest ISO (MISO) over Entergy‘s (NYSE:ETR) proposed move to MISO continued Sept. 12 as SPP claimed that MISO had fallen short in proving it would meet certain Arkansas regulatory conditions (PSC Docket No. 10-011-U).
MISO on Aug. 31 submitted an explanation of its proposal to comply with Arkansas Public Service Commission (PSC) Order 68, a series of conditions issued Aug. 3, along with the supporting testimony of Clair Moeller, MISO’s vice president of transmission asset management, and asked the Arkansas PSC to conditionally approve Entergy’s application to move to MISO. The PSC in Order 68 said it was unable to reach a finding that Entergy’s application to join MISO is in the public interest.
SPP on Sept. 12 filed its response to MISO’s proposed compliance measures.
According to SPP, MISO’s proposal fails to meet the PSC’s conditions set forth in Order 68 and Order 54. PSC Order 54 requires that an RTO have a legally recognized responsibility for cost allocation, resource adequacy, and determining whether transmission upgrades for remote resources will be included in the regional planning process and the role of transmission owners in proposing transmission upgrades; and the ability to direct the RTO to file such methodology pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act.
“The retail regulator group in MISO, the Organization of MISO States (OMS), currently does not have any of the authorities needed to satisfy the conditions established by the Commission in Order No. 54 and Order No. 68,” SPP said in its filing. “Nor does the enhanced role of the OMS — that MISO is proposing — meet any of the conditions.”
SPP further claimed that MISO’s May 24 proposal to enhance the role of the OMS is inadequate.
“There were a number of additional flaws in the MISO proposal, including the fact that it did not give the OMS any authority in resource adequacy or in determining whether transmission upgrades for remote resources would be included in the regional planning process,” SPP said. “In addition, it required a super or special majority vote.”
The PSC in Order 68, issued Aug. 3, said MISO’s proposal did not meet the conditions of Order 54. Despite this, SPP said, MISO made a “compliance filing” which fails to meet any of the terms in one of the conditions.
“In fact, the proposal included with the MISO filing is substantially similar to the prior proposal which this commission rejected as ‘not being the public interest,’” SPP said.
Specifically, SPP said MISO has failed to meet the condition that there are legally recognized responsibilities for determining regional proposals and the transition process regarding cost allocation; choosing the approach to be used for assessing resource adequacy, if any, across the entire RTO region; and determining whether transmission upgrades for remote resources will be included in the regional transmission planning process and the role of transmission owners in proposing transmission upgrades in the regional planning process.
“The only thing that MISO has given the OMS is an expanded role in regional cost allocation through the shared ability to put forth alternative tariff sheets in response to a MISO filing; however, that role still contains no legally-recognized authority for the OMS,” SPP said. “In fact, the August 31, 2012 MISO filing expressly rejects the notion of giving the OMS authority for resource adequacy, and seeks clarification that its current resource adequacy construct, in which the OMS has no authority, satisfies the conditions of Order No. 68.”