MRES would like to thank MISO for soliciting feedback on this BPM and incorporating some suggested edits that were received from the PSC participants. MRES agrees with MISO that the goal of the BPM is to provide consistency and clarity to the transmission determination process.
MRES has raised most of the comments below at the PSC, however we would like to reiterate them here for the PAC to consider prior to voting on the proposed changes and implementing an updated BPM:
- MRES asks that MISO reconsider including state regulatory precedence in its considerations throughout the BPM being that FERC defers to the state’s determination, so long as that determination is based on the seven factor test. Although FERC has the ultimate authority on the transmission determination process, MRES is not aware of an instance where FERC has actually overruled a state determination. It is understandable that MISO would prefer not to have to reference state proceedings, however it should be allowed for an unregulated owner to do their own research and reference state precedence so that owners within a zone are treated comparably. If there is a comparability issue between states, that incomparability exists today for regulated entities, and unregulated entities should not be held to a different standard (FERC standard rather than a state standard) simply because they are unregulated.
- MRES’s understanding of the original intent of BPM-028 was to provide consistency and clarity to the FERC transmission determination process. There needs to be consistency between similarly situated facilities and consistency among staff interpretations as staffing changes occur. MRES agrees that it is appropriate to update the BPM when additional clarity is needed, however MRES believes that the changes to Section 3 are much more than just clarification considering most of the previous language is stricken in its entirety and replaced with completely new language. This replacement was done with little to no justification as to why the old language is no longer valid or how the new language is more consistent with FERC precedent.
- In section 3.1, MRES would ask that MISO include more direct references to FERC precedence for each factor. Currently there is only one reference for a single factor. MRES is not suggesting that the references be exhaustive, but it would add clarity for all involved if more references could be provided to help justify the changes from the currently implemented BPM to the proposed changes. The current BPM relied heavily on the Mansfield precedence (though it is not explicitly referenced) and it would be helpful if that reference is included in the new BPM.
- MRES suggests that discussion on exceptions and exclusions be retained. This section in particular provides the needed clarity for situations that are not explicitly mentioned in the Seven Factor Test itself, but are particularly helpful for providing consistency and clarity for stakeholders and MISO staff. MRES believes that since the discussion in this section was repeated multiple times in the existing BPM, it was not simply a mistake, but was important enough to make sure that everyone understood the meaning of those exceptions and exclusions. MRES has still not been provided explicit FERC precedent as to how these exemptions and exclusions are no longer valid as we requested in the PSC discussion/feedback process.
- Section 4.2 should be expanded to include all customers in a zone. It is not clear to MRES how other TOs in a zone are impacted by a prospective TO other than through its native load customers, and as such, all load customers (including those that are not also TOs) in a transmission pricing zone are impacted, not just the existing TOs.
Respectfully Submitted,
John Weber
Senior Transmission Engineer
Missouri River Energy Services