During the April 27, 2021 Planning Subcommittee (PSC) meeting, MISO reviewed updates made to the Transmission Determination Business Practice Manual (BPM-028). MISO is requesting Stakeholder feedback on the proposed changes.
Please provide feedback by May 18.
Entergy Operating Company Comments on Proposed Changes to Transmission Determination Business Practice Manual (BPM-028)
May 18., 2021
The Entergy Operating Companies (Entergy) provide the following comments in response proposed changes to Transmission Determination Business Practice Manual (BPM-028) presented at the April 27, 2021 meeting of the Planning Subcommittee (PSC).
Entergy supports MISO’s efforts to clarify its practices for reviewing requests for Transmission Determinations by non-jurisdictional entities, consistent with guidance provided by FERC in recent Orders relating to disputes arising over the implementation of the Seven Factor Test.
In the proposed BPM language, MISO cites One FERC Order in Section 3.1; it would be helpful if the other details included in the proposed BPM language were similarly referenced.
Suggested edits to the proposed BPM revisions are also being submitted to MISO via email, as redlines to the Word document posted with the PSC meeting materials for stakeholder review.
Entergy appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the BPM revisions proposed by MISO to help provide clarity and transparency in the Transmission Determination process.
Xcel Energy appreciates the opportunity to respond to the feedback request regarding proposed edits to BPM-028 – Transmission Determination presented at the April 27, 2021 Planning Subcommittee meeting. Xcel Energy supports updates to the BPM-028 to reflect FERC guidance from recent case determinations around the FERC Seven Factor Test and to better reflect the context of each of the factors.
As evidenced in FERC’s August 7, 2020 decision in Docket Nos. ER18-2358 & ER19-1357, meeting an RTO determination of transmission facilities does not supersede the need to meet the FERC Seven Factor Test. To the extent that an RTO’s tariff standard for identifying transmission facilities differs from FERC’s seven factor test, that will lead to extensive litigation at FERC as parties request and receive a fully litigated seven factor proceeding. Aligning the MISO Tariff with the seven factor test (which is currently not the case) would therefore benefit all parties.
Xcel Energy offers some clarifying edits to the BPM-028 draft that was posted with the April PSC meeting. Due to restrictions of the feedback tool, these edits are being provided in a red-line document via a separate e-mail to MISO stakeholder relations.
Michigan Public Power Agency (MPPA) would like to provide feedback to MISO related to the proposed changes to BPM-028 and also is in support of the feedback submitted by John Weber of Missouri River Energy Services. It is important to MPPA that utilities and projects are evaluated through a non-discriminatory process. Criteria for determining whether assets are transmission or distribution must be consistently and comparably applied for all utilities, regulated or not. The non-discriminatory application of criteria is of critical importance inside each transmission pricing zone to protect just and reasonable transmission revenue requirements and transmission rates. Any changes to the BPM language surrounding the application of this criteria risks treating new asset classifications differently than those classified prior to BPM language changes. Paraphrasing from John Weber’s feedback, MPPA asks that MISO only apply changes that provide a transparent, consistent, and comparable result for all stakeholders.
Regards,
Brent Taylor
Power Deliver Resource Services Lead
Michigan Public Power Agency
CMMPA is concerned that the proposed language will not ensure consistent results. We see little in the new language that will lend needed transparency and comparability to MISO’s existing process. While the existing language has been less than perfectly clear to every party involved, the proposed language is no less confusing.
CMMPA wants to see more consistency, transparency, and comparability in the language – but this will not grant that. We echo the concerns of MRES and MPPA.
MRES would like to thank MISO for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed changes to BPM-028 related to the transmission determination process for non-regulated entities. MRES has included suggested edits and comments directly in the BPM as posted by MISO given the volume of changes MISO has proposed. Rather than repeat those comments here, please see the attached redline for our full set of feedback on this topic.
Overall, MRES would like to ensure that BPM-028 provides a transparent, consistent, and comparable result for all stakeholders and would hope that MISO would strive for that same goal. As such, we have proposed language that memorializes this goal within the BPM.
MRES also appreciates that there may be room for improvement and clarification in the BPM after being in place for 6 years, however, the proposed changes go beyond clarification, departs from precedence, and fundamentally changes the guidance outlined in the current version of the BPM while providing less examples and less clarity. We encourage MISO to either provide explicit justification for the proposed changes based on regulatory precedent, or retract the proposed new commentary.
We look forward to working with MISO and the other stakeholders on this effort to improve the transparency, consistency, and comparability of transmission determination process for non-regulated entities.
Respectfully submitted,
John Weber
Senior Transmission Engineer
Missouri River Energy Services