AEP Protest to Deficiency Response Sample Clauses

AEP Protest to Deficiency Response. 31. On September 18, 2018, AEP filed a protest to the SPP Deficiency Response, arguing that the Deficiency Response did not satisfactorily resolve the inadequacies identified in the Deficiency Letter. AEP claims that SPP’s responses relied on the Attachment Z2 Complaint Orders. However, AEP notes that since the issuance of those orders, Xxxx appealed the Commission’s decisions in Docket Nos. ER16-1341-000 and ER16-1341-001 to the D.C. Circuit. AEP notes that the Commission subsequently sought, and was granted voluntary remand by the D.C. Circuit, and has requested briefs regarding the implication of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Old Dominion on the Commission’s decision in Docket Nos. ER16-1341-000 and ER16-1341-001. AEP argues that these ongoing proceedings highlight the lack of support for SPP’s argument that customers were put on notice that SPP would assess millions of dollars in credit payment obligations years after transmission service arrangements were made.57

AEP Protest to Deficiency Response. On September 18, 2018, AEP filed a protest to the SPP Deficiency Response, arguing that the Deficiency Response did not satisfactorily resolve the inadequacies identified in the Deficiency Letter. AEP claims that SPP’s responses relied on the Attachment Z2 Complaint Orders. However, AEP notes that since the issuance of those orders, Xxxx appealed the Commission’s decisions in Docket Nos. ER16-1341-000 and ER16-1341-001 to the D.C. Circuit. AEP notes that the Commission subsequently sought, and was granted voluntary remand by the D.C. Circuit, and has requested briefs regarding the implication of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Old Dominion on the Commission’s decision in Docket Nos. ER16-1341-000 and ER16-1341-001. AEP argues that these ongoing proceedings highlight the lack of support for SPP’s argument that customers were put on notice that SPP would assess millions of dollars in credit payment obligations years after transmission service arrangements were made.57 AEP contests SPP’s claim that AEP stated that its willingness to pay $0 for directly assigned upgrade costs associated with a particular transmission service request in an Aggregate Facilities Study Completion Agreement only applied to new facilities and not to requests associated with credit payment obligations for Creditable Upgrades. Further, AEP asserts that SPP should have indicated in the Aggregate Facilities Study Completion Agreement its intention to subsequently charge AEP for Creditable Upgrades, as AEP did not receive notice that SPP would assess directly assigned upgrade costs for these upgrades until years later.58 55 Id. at 11-12. 56 SPP’s revisions to the Aggregate Facilities Study Completion Agreement form were accepted on May 19, 2015. Sw. Power Pool, Inc., Docket No. ER15-1414-000 (May 19, 2015) (delegated order). 57 AEP September 18, 2018 Protest at 2. AEP continues to disagree with SPP’s application of the cost allocation method for directly assigned upgrade costs for projects above 300 kV, which AEP argues should be determined using the effective rate methods applied to all other upgrade costs. AEP asserts that SPP applied a cost allocation method that was no longer in effect and allocated directly assigned upgrade costs associated with AEP’s transmission service requests well after SPP required AEP’s commitment to take service, which could result in SPP applying different cost allocation methods to upgrades necessitated by transmission service requests made at the same time...