Several former FERC commissioners on a webinar hosted by the American Clean Power Association on Dec. 5 said the revisions made in November’s Order 1920-A generally are promising for getting transmission built.

“I actually think that the commission ended up in, mostly, in a very positive place,” said former FERC Chair Richard Glick, now with GQS New Energy Strategies.

Most of the comments supported the approach to planning that FERC stuck with on rehearing, which is to move toward longer-term, scenario-based planning for the grid, noted Glick, who launched the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that led to 1920.

But FERC wound up granting states even more of a role in cost allocation. (See FERC Order 1920-A Wins Approval with Accommodations to States.)

“At the end of the day, if the states don’t buy off on a cost allocation mechanism, it’s very difficult to move forward with transmission projects,” Glick said. “So, you see in MISO, for instance, where there’s been a lot of state discussion, they’ve made a lot of progress because of that.”

The revisions in Order 1920-A ensured FERC would review any cost allocation agreement proposed by the states, even if the regional transmission provider does not support it. Glick said he was hopeful that would win over more states.

While Tony Clark — a former FERC commissioner who now is executive director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners — joked that it’s hard to say that 50 states have any single opinion, early indications are his members appreciate the direction the commission went with Order 1920-A.

Some of the states supported the initial version of Order 1920, but there was enough opposition that NARUC filed a rehearing request that argued for a bigger role for state utility regulators.

“Almost universally, at least from states that I’ve heard from to this point — whether they were in the camp of ‘we like 1920,’ or whether they were in the camp of ‘we didn’t like 1920; we want changes to be made’ — the response has been positive,” Clark said.

While the order faces some litigation, with initial appeals filed before FERC issued 1920-A, NARUC’s major focus is going to be on implementation now, Clark said.

“I’m sure we will continue to participate and watch closely compliance filings,” he continued. “As we learned with Order 1000, there’s sort of the original order phase, and then there’s the compliance filing phase, which is also a very, very big part of it, because that’s where a lot of the small decisions get made — small decisions that have a big impact in implementing the order itself.”

The original Order 1920 gave states a more formal role than they had under the standard Order 1000-based rules that preceded it, said former FERC Commissioner Allison Clements, who voted for the original order in May. (See FERC Issues Transmission Rule Without ROFR Changes, Christie’s Vote.)

“I think the pendulum has switched the other way, and that’s to say the states have gotten a whole lot of opportunity here,” Clements said. The rule changes favoring states will lead to a lengthier, more complex planning process, and Clements said she was unsure how much that would wind up benefiting consumers. “Be careful what we wish for,” she cautioned.

One of the changes in Order 1920-A was to give states up to one year, instead of just six months, to negotiate cost allocation rules if they need more time, said ACP Senior Counsel Gabe Tabak. Many regions should take advantage of that extra time, which will mean a longer compliance process.

“If they can come to an agreement to have a parallel approach filed alongside it in the compliance filing, there will be a lot of pressure on transmission providers to file something that the states have agreed to, rather than make a compliance filing that risks letting FERC choose a different option that the states prefer,” Tabak said.

Transmission providers are not likely to file a clashing cost allocation with FERC, but assuming they do make a “jump-ball filing,” then the commission might not like either one, at which point it is unclear what would happen, Clements said.

“Certainly, the question of the jump-ball is likely to be litigated, in addition to others who think maybe it’s moved too far toward giving states authority that they shouldn’t have,” she added.