By Rich Heidorn Jr.
Order 890’s transparency provisions do not apply to “asset management” projects that provide only “incidental” increases in transmission capacity, FERC ruled in two orders Friday.
The commission rejected complaints by California regulators and others who contend Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison are violating Order 890’s transparency provisions because much of their transmission planning is done without stakeholder input or review.
The California Public Utilities Commission, Northern California Power Agency, the city and county of San Francisco, the State Water Contractors and the Transmission Agency of Northern California filed the complaint against PG&E in February 2017.
The agencies complained that PG&E offered no stakeholder or external review on almost 80% of its transmission capital projects, including substation upgrades, replacement of deteriorating transmission equipment, system reliability and automation, and technology infrastructure.
But the commission said such activities were generally not subject to Order 890 because they provide no more than incidental increases in transmission capacity — such as replacing a 1940s-vintage transformer with modern equipment “which could be of a higher capacity if the PTO [participating transmission owner] has standardized transformer sizes across its system to allow for sparing should the transformer fail” (EL17-45).
“While Order No. 890 does not explicitly define the scope of ‘transmission planning,’ the commission adopted the transmission planning requirements in Order No. 890 to remedy opportunities for undue discrimination in expansion of the transmission grid,” FERC said. “Based on the information in the record, we find that the specific asset management projects and activities at issue here [are designed to] maintain [PG&E’s] existing electric transmission system and meet regulatory compliance requirements.”
The commission acknowledged asset management could result in significant transmission capacity increases, “for example, where a PTO determines that it can address a CAISO-identified transmission need by expanding the scope of an asset management project or activity to result in a capacity increase.”
“Accordingly, the incremental portion of the asset management project or activity would be subject to the transmission planning requirements of Order No. 890 and would have to be submitted for consideration in CAISO’s [transmission planning process] through the request window. If CAISO did not approve the incremental work, then the PTO should not expand the scope of the original asset management project or activity without that work being subject to consideration through an Order No. 890-compliant transmission planning process.”
The commission also said it “strongly encourage[s] PG&E to continue its efforts to work with complainants and other stakeholders to develop a process to share and review information with interested parties regarding asset management projects and activities that are not considered through the” CAISO transmission planning process.
SoCal Edison Review Process OK’d
FERC used the same reasoning in rejecting the PUC’s request for a show-cause order finding that Order 890 governs transmission owners’ planning for self-approved projects.
Instead, the commission approved SCE’s tariff change creating a process for sharing information with stakeholders about its asset management projects not subject to Order 890 (ER18-370, AD18-12).
The commission said the transmission maintenance and compliance review process “offers transparency and the opportunity for stakeholders to have input into the development of SoCal Edison’s transmission rates.” It ordered SCE to make a compliance filing within 30 days adding provisions the company proposed in response to protesters’ concerns.
