UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. ) Docket No. ER

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Southwest Power Pool, Inc. ) Docket No. ER ANSWER OF SOUTHWEST POWER POOL, INC. Pursuant to Rule 213 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission s ( Commission ) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R , Southwest Power Pool, Inc. ( SPP ) submits this answer ( Answer ) to Mid-Kansas Electric Company, LLC s ( Mid-Kansas ) protest filed in this proceeding. I. BACKGROUND On May 2, 2011, in Docket No. ER , SPP submitted for filing the following: (1) an unexecuted Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service ( Service Agreement ) between SPP as Transmission Provider and the Kansas Power Pool ( KPP ) as Network Customer ( KPP Service Agreement ); and (2) an unexecuted Network Operating Agreement ( NOA ) between SPP as Transmission Provider, KPP as Network Customer, and Mid-Kansas, Midwest Energy, Inc., and Westar Energy, Inc. all as Host Transmission Owners ( KPP NOA ). 1 As stated in the May 2 Filing, the KPP Agreements supersede and replace an unexecuted Service 1 See Submission of Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Docket No. ER (May 2, 2011) ( May 2 Filing ). The KPP Service Agreement and the KPP NOA are collectively referred to herein as the KPP Agreements.

2 Agreement and NOA currently pending before the Commission in Docket No. ER On May 18, 2011, and May 23, 2011, KPP and Mid-Kansas respectively filed protests regarding the May 2 Filing. 3 In their protests, KPP and Mid-Kansas restate their respective positions relating to the inclusion of certain Service and Operating Agreements for Local Delivery Service ( SOALDS ) between KPP and MKEC as an attachment to the KPP Service Agreement, which they previously made in other dockets relating to similar agreements that have been superseded. 4 SPP also addressed the SOALDS issue in previous pleadings in other dockets and in the May 2 Filing and therefore does not address it in this answer. 5 However, Mid-Kansas raises a new issue in its protest regarding the KPP Agreements. Specifically, Mid-Kansas objects to what it perceives as SPP s decision to convert from its prior practice of using a separate Service Agreement and NOA for See Submission of Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement and Network Operating Agreement of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Docket No. ER (Jan. 13, 2011) ( January 13 Filing ). See Motion to Intervene and Protest of Kansas Power Pool, Docket No. ER (May 18, 2011) ( KPP Protest ); See Motion to Intervene and Protest of Mid-Kansas Electric Company, LLC, Docket No. ER (May 23, 2011) ( Mid-Kansas Protest ). See, e.g., Motion to Leave to Intervene and Protest of Mid-Kansas Electric Company, LLC, Docket No. ER (Feb. 3, 2011); Motion to Intervene, Protest and Motion for Consolidation of Kansas Power Pool, Docket No. ER (Feb. 3, 2011). The May 2 Filing presents a thorough recitation of the history of the various Service Agreement filings and issues related to the KPP Agreements. See May 2 Filing at 2-3. See, e.g., May 2 Filing at 2; January 13 Filing at

3 service in each Host Transmission Owner zone, 6 by including more than one Host Transmission Owner as a party to the KPP NOA. SPP files this limited answer solely to clarify the record with regard to this issue. 7 II. SPP HAS NOT CHANGED ITS PRACTICE AND PREVIOUSLY HAS FILED NOAS WITH MULTIPLE HOST TRANSMISSION OWNERS Mid-Kansas assertion that SPP acted contrary to its prior practice of using a separate Service Agreement and NOA for service in each Host Transmission Owner Zone 8 by including more than one Host Transmission Owner as parties to the KPP NOA is simply wrong. SPP previously has filed, and the Commission has accepted, NOAs that included multiple Host Transmission Owners. 9 In fact, Mid-Kansas currently is a party to such an NOA. Mid-Kansas is one of the three Host Transmission Owners that are Mid-Kansas Protest at 9. SPP seeks leave to file this answer to assist the Commission s decision-making process and to clarify the issues in this proceeding. The Commission regularly allows answers for such purposes. See, e.g., Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 114 FERC 61,289, at P 14, order on reh g, 116 FERC 61,289 (2006) (accepting answer that aided the Commission s decision-making); Wyo. Interstate Co., 111 FERC 61,215, at P 10 (2005) (allowing answer because it assists in providing a fuller understanding of the issues in dispute ); N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 91 FERC 61,218, at 61,797 (2000) (allowing answer useful in addressing the issues arising in these proceedings ); Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 88 FERC 61,138, at 61,381 (1999) (accepting pleadings because they helped to clarify the issues). Mid-Kansas Protest at 9. See e.g., Sw. Power Pool, Inc., Docket No. ER , Letter Order (Mar. 17, 2011) (accepted NOA with three Host Transmission Owners); Sw. Power Pool, Inc., Docket No. ER , Letter Order (Aug. 19, 2010) (accepted NOA with two Host Transmission Owners); Sw. Power Pool, Inc., Docket No. ER , Letter Order (Jan. 29, 2010) (accepted NOA with four Host Transmission Owners). 3

4 parties to the executed NOA filed in Docket No. ER Mid-Kansas did not object to the NOA filed in Docket No. ER , nor did it argue that the NOA was non-conforming and needed wholesale revisions to avoid being ambiguous and unworkable, as it maintains here. 11 In addition, allowing multiple Host Transmission Owners to execute a single NOA associated with service pursuant to a single NITSA benefits all parties because it facilitates efficient contract administration. Furthermore, contrary to Mid-Kansas assertion, 12 allowing Host Transmission Owners to execute one NOA does not require wholesale revisions to the NOA. The sections of the NOA apply to each Host Transmission Owner individually and with respect to the Host Transmission Owners individual service areas. As Mid-Kansas notes, the rights and obligations of the Host Transmission Owners in an NOA are limited to situations regarding its [the Host Transmission Owners ] assets and not those of other Host Transmission Owners. 13 For example Sections 3.6 and 3.7 of the NOA cited by Mid-Kansas specifically apply to Transmission Providers and Host Transmission Owners, if applicable. 14 If the emergency conditions that trigger these provisions do not impact a Host Transmission Owner, then they expressly do no apply to such Host Transmission Owner. Furthermore, See Sw. Power Pool, Inc., Docket No. ER , Letter Order (Dec. 21, 2010). The other Host Transmission Owners are Midwest Energy and ITC Great Plains, LLC. See Mid-Kansas Protest at 9. See id. at 9. See id. at 10. See KPP NOA at 3.6 and

5 no other Host Transmission Owner has indicated concern that multiple Host Transmission Owners create an ambiguous agreement. In short, SPP s long-standing practice has been to allow multiple Host Transmission Owners to execute one NOA and the Commission has accepted such NOAs, including a prior NOA with Mid-Kansas as one of three Host Transmission Owners. Mid-Kansas s new objection to NOAs with multiple Host Transmission Owners as parties provides no basis for rejection of the single KPP NOA as filed. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above and in the May 2 Filing, SPP respectfully requests that the Commission accept this Answer, and the KPP Agreements as filed without modification. Respectfully submitted, /s/tyler R. Brown Carrie L. Bumgarner Tyler R. Brown Wright & Talisman, P.C G Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C (202) bumgarner@wrightlaw.com brown@wrightlaw.com Counsel for Southwest Power Pool, Inc. June 7, 2011 K:\SPP\ER MKEC Response FINAL.doc 5

6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding. Dated at Washington, DC, this 7th day of June, /s/ Tyler R. Brown Tyler Brown Attorney for Southwest Power Pool, Inc.