Substantive Matters. We accept the AEP Agreement, effective August 1, 2019, as requested, subject to the outcome of the pending rehearing in Docket No. ER18-1702-002. We find that SPP’s proposed revisions to the AEP Agreement either conform to SPP’s pro forma NITSA or represent non-conforming terms and conditions that were previously accepted by the Commission.21 Because the AEP Agreement was originally filed within 30 days of the commencement of service, we grant SPP’s request for waiver of prior notice to permit the AEP Agreement to become effective on August 1, 2019, as requested.22 Although AEP protests SPP’s inclusion of Creditable Upgrade information within section 8.13 of Attachment 1 in the NITSA, we find that SPP does not propose to revise that information in this version of the AEP Agreement. Therefore, section 8.13 of Attachment 1 in the NITSA contains the currently-effective language, which the Commission accepted in the October 2018 Order.23 We note, however, that our approval of the AEP Agreement is subject to the outcome of the pending rehearing in Docket No. ER18-1702-002, which involves issues relating to Creditable Upgrade information in section 8.13 of Attachment 1 in the AEP NITSA. Finally, insofar as AEP raises concerns regarding SPP’s administration of its Attachment Z2 revenue crediting process during the period between 2008-2016, we note that the issue in the instant proceeding is whether SPP has appropriately included certain information in its service agreements pursuant to its Tariff, not SPP’s administration of its Attachment Z2 revenue crediting process during a prior period. That latter issue is pending in several proceedings that are before the Commission, including requests for rehearing in Docket Nos. EL17-21-001, EL18-9-001, and ER16-1341-004 and a refund proceeding following the Commission’s order on voluntary remand in Docket No. ER16- 1341-003. The Commission will consider issues pertaining to SPP’s administration of the Attachment Z2 revenue crediting process during the 2008-2016 period in those proceedings.
Substantive Matters. We accept the Western Farmers Agreement, as discussed below. We find that the proposed revisions to the Western Farmers Agreement conform to SPP’s pro forma NITSA and that the non-conforming terms and conditions previously accepted by the Commission were not directly challenged by Western Farmers.14 We also find that the issues raised in Western Farmers’ comments are the subject of the pending Complaint proceeding in Docket No. EL19-93-000, and the Commission will consider those issues in that proceeding. Because SPP filed the Western Farmers Agreement within 30 days of the commencement of service, we grant SPP’s request for waiver of the Commission’s prior notice requirement to permit the Western Farmers Agreement to become effective on December 1, 2019, as requested.15 The Commission orders: SPP’s filing is hereby accepted, effective December 1, 2019, as discussed in the body of this order. By the Commission. ( S E A L ) Xxxxxxxx X. Xxxx, Secretary. 14 Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 169 FERC ¶ 61,057; Sw. Power Pool, Inc., Docket No. ER19-2098-000 (Aug. 6, 2019) (delegated order). 15 Prior Notice and Filing Requirements, 64 FERC ¶ 61,139, reh’g denied, 65 FERC ¶ 61,081. Document Content(s)
Substantive Matters a. A typewritten transcript of the Arbitration Hearings shall be prepared by the Reporter supplied by the Bureau of Conciliation and Arbitration, if there is one available. In the event that the Bureau cannot supply said Reporter, the Arbitrator will notify the parties prior to the Arbitration Hearing so that any of them, if they wish to obtain a typewritten transcript, will supply the Reporter and pay the cost of the same. If both parties wish a copy of the typewritten transcript, they will pay for it in equal parts. In the event that one of the parties decides to submit a brief, the Arbitrator shall grant a term no greater then thirty (30) working days in which to submit the same.
Substantive Matters a. A stenographic transcript of the arbitration hearings shall be prepared by the stenographer supplied by the Bureau of Conciliation and Arbitration if there is one available. In the event that the Bureau were not able to supply said Stenographer, the Arbitrator will notify the parties prior to the Arbitration Hearing so that any of them, if they wish to obtain a stenographic transcript, shall supply the Stenographer and pay the cost for the same. If both parties wish a copy of the stenographic transcript, they shall pay for it in equal parts. In the event that any of the parties decides to submit a brief, the Arbitrator shall grant a term no greater then thirty (30) working days in which to submit the same.
Substantive Matters. We find the Agreement just and reasonable. Schedule 6, section 1.5.9 of the Operating Agreement provides that a state governmental entity may agree to voluntarily be responsible for the allocation of all costs of a proposed transmission expansion or enhancement that addresses state public policy requirements and that PJM will include such transmission expansion or enhancements in the RTEP. PJM states that the Agreement effectuates the State Agreement Approach by providing the services to be performed under that provision: (1) the performance of planning studies to identify system improvements to interconnect and provide for the deliverability of offshore wind generation capacity at specific points of interconnection to the Transmission System, and
Substantive Matters. We accept the AEP Agreement, effective May 1, 2018, as requested. As discussed above, in the May 2018 Order, the Commission accepted Tariff revisions that require SPP to include, in transmission service and generator interconnection agreements, “a list of those upgrades associated with the agreement that are eligible for credits ”60 Therefore, we find that SPP has revised and submitted the AEP Agreement pursuant to the requirements of Tariff section I.A of Attachment Z2. With regard to AEP’s claim that SPP applied a cost allocation method that was no longer in effect, we find that SPP’s application of the Tariff is consistent with the base 59 Id. at 3. plan funding cost allocation rules articulated in Tariff sections III.A-B of Attachment J (Recovery of Costs Associated with New Facilities). In particular, we find that SPP correctly revised the NITSA to list AEP’s Attachment Z2 Credit Upgrade costs, including 33 percent of network upgrade costs that SPP directly assigned to AEP because certain upgrades were not eligible for base plan funding. Under SPP’s base plan funding cost allocation rules, credit payment obligations pursuant to Attachment Z2 are considered part of the network upgrade costs required to grant a customer’s transmission service request; thus, the credit payment obligations are eligible for base plan funding pursuant to Tariff section III.B (Conditions for Classifying Service Upgrade Costs Associated with Designated Resources as Base Plan Upgrade Costs Eligible for Cost Allocation) of Attachment J.61 If the criteria for base plan funding in Tariff section III.B are met, then Tariff section III.B.d.i.1-2 refers to Tariff section III.A.2-4 (Allocation of Base Plan Upgrade Costs Eligible for Cost Allocation) of Attachment J.62 SPP states that, under Tariff section III.A.2-4, it uses the Notification to Construct as the operative date for determining the effective cost allocation method under the Tariff. In particular, Tariff section III.A.4.1.a specifies that for Base Plan Upgrades associated with a new or changed designated resource that is a wind generation plant where the upgrade is located in a different zone than the point of delivery, a situation that applies to AEP in the instant proceeding, “For Base Plan Upgrades issued a Notification to Construct prior to June 19, 2010 or whose nominal operating voltage level is less than 300 kV,” 67 percent of the Base Plan Upgrade’s costs will be regionally allocated.63 Therefore, if SPP issued a ...
Substantive Matters. As an initial matter, as stated in the February 2019 Order, the Commission has held that the removal of Option 1 pricing from the MISO Tariff does not preclude the use of Option 1 to recover the costs of network upgrades that are the subject of agreements effective prior to March 22, 2011.82 The MPFCA in this case, which provided for construction of the facilities for which the instant Agreement now provides compensation, was effective as of January 30, 2010. Therefore, the MPFCA became effective when the MISO Tariff permitted the use of Option 1 pricing, and it is permissible for the Agreement associated with this MPFCA to implement Option 1 pricing. We accept the Agreement for filing, to be effective March 7, 2020, as requested. We reject Xxxxxx Hill’s argument that the Commission should not allow rates under the Agreement to go into effect retroactively, as this argument misapplies the Commission’s precedent on late-filed rates. The FPA requires that, absent waiver, a rate must be filed with the Commission at least 60 days before a public utility can charge that rate to a customer.83 However, if a utility files an otherwise just and reasonable cost-based rate after new service has commenced, the Commission will require the utility to refund to its customers the time value of the revenues collected for the entire period that the rate was collected without Commission authorization.84 Such refunds are in addition to any refunds which may be required if the proposed rate is not found to be just and 82 E.ON Rehearing Order, 142 FERC ¶ 61,048 at P 34. 83 16 U.S.C. § 824d (2012); 18 C.F.R. § 35.3 (2019). 84 El Paso Electric Co., 105 FERC ¶ 61,131, at P 19 (2003) (citing Prior Notice, 64 FERC ¶ 61,139 at 61,979).
Substantive Matters. 36. We accept the AEP Agreement, effective May 1, 2018, as requested. As discussed above, in the May 2018 Order, the Commission accepted Tariff revisions that require SPP to include, in transmission service and generator interconnection agreements, “a list of those upgrades associated with the agreement that are eligible for credits ”60 Therefore, we find that SPP has revised and submitted the AEP Agreement pursuant to the requirements of Tariff section I.A of Attachment Z2.
Substantive Matters. We accept the Western Farmers Agreement, as discussed below. We find that the proposed revisions to the Western Farmers Agreement conform to SPP’s pro forma NITSA and that the non-conforming terms and conditions were previously accepted and are not directly challenged by Western Farmers.22 We also find that the issues raised in Western Farmers’ comments are the subject of the pending Complaint proceeding in Docket No. EL19-93-000, and the Commission will consider those issues in that proceeding. Because the Western Farmers Agreement was filed within 30 days of the commencement of service, we grant SPP’s request for waiver of the Commission’s order).
Substantive Matters. We accept the AEP Agreement, effective August 1, 2020, as requested, subject to the outcome of the pending rehearing in Docket No. ER18-1702-002. We find that SPP’s proposed revisions to the AEP Agreement either conform to SPP’s pro forma NITSA or represent non-conforming terms and conditions that were previously accepted by the Commission.15 Because SPP filed the AEP Agreement within 30 days of the commencement of service, we grant SPP’s request for waiver of prior notice to permit the AEP Agreement to become effective on August 1, 2020, as requested.16
