FERC Commissioner Mark Christie on Thursday blasted Chair Richard Glick and Commissioner Allison Clements for opposing the Southeast Energy Exchange Market (SEEM), accusing them of wanting to force utilities in the Southeastern U.S. to form an RTO and contending that their arguments against the proposed market were made in bad faith (ER21-1111, et al.).

The SEEM proposal — which created an energy imbalance market among utilities including Southern Co., Dominion Energy, Louisville Gas & Electric, the Tennessee Valley Authority and Duke Energy — went into effect Oct. 12 by operation of law because FERC had failed to act on it by a 60-day deadline. Christie was joined by fellow Republican Commissioner James Danly in supporting the proposal. (See SEEM to Move Ahead, Minus FERC Approval.)

In a separate order, Glick and Clements also called for TVA to open its transmission system to competition, although Glick said it would require action by Congress. Christie suggested Congress require TVA to increase its use of competitive bidding for generation (EL21-40, TX21-1). (See FERC Rejects Bid to Open TVA to Competition.)

In a statement published Wednesday, Glick explained that he was prepared to vote to approve SEEM, despite his personal belief that an RTO would serve Southeastern consumers better than the proposed market, because proposals filed under Federal Power Act Section 205 require the commission to evaluate them on their own merits. But he said SEEM’s use of the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, which presumes that any freely negotiated wholesale energy contract is just and reasonable, will inhibit FERC’s ability to monitor for abuses of market power.

“I believe that the commission’s monitoring capabilities, enforcement authority and ability to institute an FPA Section 206 action provide adequate protections should any Southeast EEM members or participants engage in any conduct that may transgress the FPA or commission regulations,” Glick wrote. “That is true, however, only if the commission’s Section 206 authority is not hamstrung, for instance, by the improper application of the Mobile-Sierra presumption.”

Clements was more harsh in her criticism of the market, writing that it “fails to abide by the bedrock principles of open access and non-discrimination that were crystallized in the commission’s landmark Order No. 888, and fails to ensure “just and reasonable rates.”

“The filing parties proposed the Southeast EEM with neither any quantitative analysis demonstrating an inability by participants to exercise market power or manipulate the market, nor adequate safeguards to protect against these abuses on a going-forward basis,” Clements wrote. “It is insufficient to rely on participants’ existing market-based rate authorities given the new market structure and new market footprint of the Southeast EEM.”

During FERC’s monthly open meeting Thursday, Christie dismissed these arguments. He noted that Glick and Clements had supported PJM’s focused minimum offer price rule (MOPR) proposal, on which the commission also deadlocked and which also automatically went into effect. Pointing to the PJM Independent Market Monitor’s argument that the new MOPR would open the door for market power abuse, Christie said during the meeting that he “can’t really take seriously [Glick’s and Clements’] concerns about market power” in SEEM. (See related story, ‘Good Riddance’ to Old PJM MOPR, Glick Says.)

“What was going on here, and let’s not kid ourselves … the opposition [to SEEM] was about one thing and one thing only,” Christie said. “And that was a well-organized campaign by numerous special interest groups to force all states into federally regulated RTOs, both the Southeastern states and the Western states.”

He said both Glick and Clements “have both been very vocal about supporting this effort to push states into RTOs. Now if you want to have an open and serious debate whether consumers do better in RTO states versus non-RTO states … then bring it on. I’ll be happy to have that debate. There’s no doubt that there’s a lot of special interests who think they’re going to do a lot better and make a lot more money in an RTO construct, but consumers don’t necessarily do better. …

“It’s the choice of the states’ elected legislators whether their utilities should join an RTO; it’s not for FERC to force them or pressure them into them. … The market power issue is a dodge.” He also noted that none of the states in the SEEM footprint opposed the proposal.

Speaking at his post-meeting press conference, Glick said that “Commissioner Christie kind of lumped me in with opponents of the proposal, and I wasn’t an opponent of the proposal; I was going to vote for it. But unfortunately, my two colleagues attempted to change the commission’s precedent with regards to the Mobile-Sierra standard. … On that point I think Commissioner Christie misunderstood what I was saying.”

Clements said during the meeting that the member-controlled SEEM Operating Committee’s veto power over who could become a member of the market violates Order 888’s open-access principles.

“Since the issuance of Order 888 [in 1996], the commission has time and time again reiterated its commitment to open access as the cornerstone of the Federal Power Act’s consumer-protection directive,” she said. “The commission’s response to the SEEM filing should have affirmed yet again the noncontroversial proposition that any type of market development and transmission service must follow a just and reasonable path and avoid undue discrimination.”

Clements also called Christie’s arguments in his statement “a strawman.”

“To be crystal clear, my opposition to accepting the filing is not because I would prefer a different market structure,” she said. “My concerns are grounded in Order 888, the commission’s duty is ensure nondiscriminatory access and our obligation to ensure rates are just and reasonable.”

Danly made a similar argument in his statement about why Glick and Clements opposed the proposal, though he was not as accusatory as Christie.

“While some may have preferred that the utilities in the Southeast create [an RTO], that is not the filing the parties submitted,” he wrote. “My colleagues detail a litany of objections to the Southeast EEM proposal that, I presume, stem from just such a preference, since the establishment of an ISO or RTO would bring with it open access throughout the Southeast in accordance with Order Nos. 888, 719 or 2000. But that decision is not ours to make. That choice is reserved wholly to the states and their utilities.”

Clements responded during the meeting: “This rather head-scratching interpretation of my position would suggest a belief that Order 888 has not already required open access across the country for over two decades.”