By Chris O’Malley
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last week approved SPP’s market-to-market coordination rules with MISO, after the two RTOs resolved an earlier dispute over the creation of flowgates (ER13-1864).
SPP had originally proposed restrictions on the right of either RTO to designate a new M2M flowgate — transmission lines or transformers monitored for overloads — outside of their mutually agreed-upon scheduling timeframes.
SPP would have allowed the creation of flowgates during extenuating circumstances or when the RTO seeking a new designation compensated the other for any re-dispatch that resulted.
PJM and Exelon filed comments supporting SPP’s position, with Exelon noting that MISO created 500 new flowgates between September 2011 and October 2012, while PJM designated only 80. SPP’s transmission owners also supported the restrictions, citing the administrative burdens of complicated resettlement processes related to re-dispatches.
MISO and its Independent Market Monitor opposed SPP’s proposal, which they said would effectively give one RTO veto power. The Monitor noted that M2M flowgates are dynamic, responding to changes in outages and constraint definitions.
Compromise Reached
Following a technical conference last September, SPP agreed to drop its prohibition in a compromise with MISO. The RTOs agreed on new language, which FERC accepted in last week’s order, spelling out the conditions under which one RTO will be compensated by the other for costs stemming from flowgate designations.
In its Jan. 22 order, the commission also agreed to allow the two RTOs to defer a day-ahead firm-flow entitlement exchange process until they decide whether its implementation outweighs its costs.
FERC also ordered SPP to report back to the commission every six months on its progress resolving concerns over interface bus modeling methodologies. The MISO Monitor says disparities in the methodologies used by MISO and PJM is resulting in double counting of congestion. (See related story, Patton Asks FERC to Set Deadline on PJM-MISO Interface Pricing Dispute.)
Noting that PJM and MISO have been unable to resolve their differences over two years of discussions, the commission said “we anticipate … that SPP and MISO could face technical challenges in identifying the appropriate pricing methodologies.”
MISO-SPP Flow Dispute not Affected
The order does not affect a separate dispute between MISO and SPP over flows between MISO’s northern and southern regions. MISO began limiting flows between the regions last spring after SPP complained that MISO breached their joint operating agreement by moving power over its transmission footprint in excess of a 1,000-MW physical contract path.
The commission said that issue, the subject of a separate docket (EL11-34), was beyond the scope of this proceeding.