SPP’s LSE Definitions Accepted by Quorum-less FERC
FERC said SPP’s proposal to add “load-serving entity” and “non-load-serving entity” to its membership agreement became effective due to its lack of quorum.

By Tom Kleckner

FERC last week said that SPP’s proposal to add the defined terms “load-serving entity” and “non-load-serving entity” to its membership agreement became automatically effective (ER19-2524).

The commission said that because it lacked a quorum and did not act on SPP’s request within a 60-day period, the revisions are effective by “operation of law,” under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act.

Chairman Neil Chatterjee and Commissioner Bernard McNamee filed a joint statement Friday saying they would have accepted SPP’s proposed revisions, effective Oct. 1, as requested.

FERC is currently down to three commissioners while it waits for two seats to be filled. However, Commissioner Richard Glick is precluded from acting on proceedings involving his former employer, Avangrid, until Nov. 29. (See Glick Recusal May Mean No MOPR Ruling Before December.)

In a statement, Glick said that while Avangrid was not a intervenor in the docket, “The substantive issues presented relate directly to a contested issue in another pending proceeding” (EL19-11).

SPP LSE
Invenergy is among the many intervenors in SPP’s membership exit fee docket. | Invenergy

SPP’s revisions are related to a complaint filed last year by the American Wind Energy Association and the Advanced Power Alliance over the RTO’s membership exit fee. FERC in April agreed with AWEA and APA and ordered the grid operator to lower its exit fee to $100,000, a 67% reduction from current levels. Avangrid Renewables is among the many intervenors in that docket. (See FERC Tells SPP to End Exit Fee for Non-TOs.)

Chatterjee and McNamee said they agree with SPP that defining the LSE and non-LSE terms “provides clarity to members as to which level of withdrawal deposit will apply in the event that a member submits a notice of intent to withdraw.” LSEs would also be subject to an additional fee based on their net energy-for-load share of the RTO’s financial obligations and future interest.

SPP has requested a rehearing of FERC’s April decision, although it made a compliance filing reducing the fee as ordered in August. (See “Directors Lower Exit Fee to $100K,” SPP Board of Directors/MC Briefs: July 30, 2019.) The RTO said the commission’s conclusion that SPP’s exit fee was a “barrier to membership” was incorrect. “All that the exit fee does is require that members have ‘skin in the game,’ thereby serving as the quid pro quo for the privilege of obtaining voting rights,” SPP said.

Several LSEs — including American Electric Power, Evergy, Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, the Nebraska Public Power District and Xcel Energy — also requested rehearing. “While the commission is wrong that the existing exit fee formula is unjust and unreasonable, it is arbitrary and capricious to conclude that the complete elimination of any exit fee for non-transmission owners would be just and reasonable,” they said.

The commission issued a tolling order on June 17 giving it more time to consider the rehearing requests.

President Trump last week nominated FERC General Counsel James Danly to fill one of the two vacant seats. There has been no nominee for the other vacancy. (See related story, Dems, Enviros Upset Over Solo FERC Nomination.)

SPP/WEIS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *