The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last week approved the latest set of Order 1000 compliance filings from PJM and MISO.
The commission conditionally accepted MISO’s third-round regional compliance filings (ER13-187-006). It denied requests for rehearing of the commission’s second compliance order issued in May 2014.
FERC also found that PJM and its transmission owners have partially complied with their second compliance order and denied in part and granted in part requests for rehearing and clarification of the order (ER13-198-003).
Both RTOs were directed to make additional compliance filings within 30 days.
FERC also conditionally accepted interregional compliance filings by PJM (ER13-1927-000), MISO (ER13-1923-000) and transmission providers in the Southeastern Regional Transmission Planning region, the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council and the South Carolina Regional Transmission Planning region (ER13-1922).
The orders accepted the proposal to allocate costs of interregional transmission facilities to each region based on its share of the total avoided cost of regional transmission facilities displaced by the interregional project.
Bay Statement on ROFR
Commissioner Norman Bay filed concurring statements in the MISO and PJM regional compliance orders, warning states not to attempt to protect their incumbent utilities from competition in transmission development.
Bay noted that while Order 1000’s prohibition on federal rights of first refusal (ROFR) for incumbent transmission developers does not preempt state law regarding construction of transmission facilities, states are also barred by the Constitution from interfering with interstate commerce.
“State laws that discriminate against interstate commerce — that protect or favor in-state enterprise at the expense of out-of-state competition — may run afoul of the dormant commerce clause,” Bay, a former Constitutional law professor, wrote. “The commission’s order today does not determine the constitutionality of any particular state right-of-first-refusal law. That determination, if it is made, lies with a different forum, whether state or federal court.”
