Substantive Matters. We accept the AEP Agreement, effective August 1, 2019, as requested, subject to the outcome of the pending rehearing in Docket No. ER18-1702-002. We find that SPP’s proposed revisions to the AEP Agreement either conform to SPP’s pro forma NITSA or represent non-conforming terms and conditions that were previously accepted by the Commission.21 Because the AEP Agreement was originally filed within 30 days of the commencement of service, we grant SPP’s request for waiver of prior notice to permit the AEP Agreement to become effective on August 1, 2019, as requested.22 Although AEP protests SPP’s inclusion of Creditable Upgrade information within section 8.13 of Attachment 1 in the NITSA, we find that SPP does not propose to revise that information in this version of the AEP Agreement. Therefore, section 8.13 of Attachment 1 in the NITSA contains the currently-effective language, which the Commission accepted in the October 2018 Order.23 We note, however, that our approval of the AEP Agreement is subject to the outcome of the pending rehearing in Docket No. ER18-1702-002, which involves issues relating to Creditable Upgrade information in section 8.13 of Attachment 1 in the AEP NITSA. Finally, insofar as AEP raises concerns regarding SPP’s administration of its Attachment Z2 revenue crediting process during the period between 2008-2016, we note that the issue in the instant proceeding is whether SPP has appropriately included certain information in its service agreements pursuant to its Tariff, not SPP’s administration of its Attachment Z2 revenue crediting process during a prior period. That latter issue is pending in several proceedings that are before the Commission, including requests for rehearing in Docket Nos. EL17-21-001, EL18-9-001, and ER16-1341-004 and a refund proceeding following the Commission’s order on voluntary remand in Docket No. ER16- 1341-003. The Commission will consider issues pertaining to SPP’s administration of the Attachment Z2 revenue crediting process during the 2008-2016 period in those proceedings.
Substantive Matters. We accept the Western Farmers Agreement, as discussed below. We find that the proposed revisions to the Western Farmers Agreement conform to SPP’s pro forma NITSA and that the non-conforming terms and conditions previously accepted by the Commission were not directly challenged by Western Farmers.14 We also find that the issues raised in Western Farmers’ comments are the subject of the pending Complaint proceeding in Docket No. EL19-93-000, and the Commission will consider those issues in that proceeding.
Substantive Matters. We accept the AEP Agreement, effective February 1, 2020, as requested, subject to the outcome of the pending rehearing proceeding in Docket No. ER18-1702-002.
Substantive Matters a. A stenographic transcript of the arbitration hearings shall be prepared by the stenographer supplied by the Bureau of Conciliation and Arbitration if there is one available. In the event that the Bureau were not able to supply said Stenographer, the Arbitrator will notify the parties prior to the Arbitration Hearing so that any of them, if they wish to obtain a stenographic transcript, shall supply the Stenographer and pay the cost for the same. If both parties wish a copy of the stenographic transcript, they shall pay for it in equal parts. In the event that any of the parties decides to submit a brief, the Arbitrator shall grant a term no greater then thirty (30) working days in which to submit the same.
b. The Arbitrator shall not have power or faculty to in any way whatsoever alter, amend, change, modify, add or subtract in any way whatsoever from any of the provisions of this Agreement, even from any of the provisions of the article regarding "Management Rights". An award in violation of what has been indicated above shall be null and without effect.
Substantive Matters. We find the Agreement just and reasonable. Schedule 6, section 1.5.9 of the Operating Agreement provides that a state governmental entity may agree to voluntarily be responsible for the allocation of all costs of a proposed transmission expansion or enhancement that addresses state public policy requirements and that PJM will include such transmission expansion or enhancements in the RTEP. PJM states that the Agreement effectuates the State Agreement Approach by providing the services to be performed under that provision: (1) the performance of planning studies to identify system improvements to interconnect and provide for the deliverability of offshore wind generation capacity at specific points of interconnection to the Transmission System, and
Substantive Matters a. A typewritten transcript of the Arbitration Hearings shall be prepared by the Reporter supplied by the Bureau of Conciliation and Arbitration, if there is one available. In the event that the Bureau cannot supply said Reporter, the Arbitrator will notify the parties prior to the Arbitration Hearing so that any of them, if they wish to obtain a typewritten transcript, will supply the Reporter and pay the cost of the same. If both parties wish a copy of the typewritten transcript, they will pay for it in equal parts. In the event that one of the parties decides to submit a brief, the Arbitrator shall grant a term no greater then thirty (30) working days in which to submit the same.
b. The Arbitrator will have no power or faculty to in any way alter, amend, change, modify, add or subtract from any of the provisions of this Agreement, including from any of the provisions of the Article regarding "Management Rights". An award in violation of what has been indicated above shall be void and without effect.
Substantive Matters. 7. Applicants have not met their burden of demonstrating that the Capacity Agreement is just and reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. As a result of the Capacity Agreement, Duke Carolinas and Duke Progress, two affiliated entities, would share capacity with one another outside of the market at no charge. Applicants state that the reciprocal nature of the Capacity Agreement justifies the zero price term, citing
Substantive Matters. As an initial matter, as stated in the February 2019 Order, the Commission has held that the removal of Option 1 pricing from the MISO Tariff does not preclude the use of Option 1 to recover the costs of network upgrades that are the subject of agreements effective prior to March 22, 2011.82 The MPFCA in this case, which provided for construction of the facilities for which the instant Agreement now provides compensation, was effective as of January 30, 2010. Therefore, the MPFCA became effective when the MISO Tariff permitted the use of Option 1 pricing, and it is permissible for the Agreement associated with this MPFCA to implement Option 1 pricing. We accept the Agreement for filing, to be effective March 7, 2020, as requested. We reject Xxxxxx Hill’s argument that the Commission should not allow rates under the Agreement to go into effect retroactively, as this argument misapplies the Commission’s precedent on late-filed rates. The FPA requires that, absent waiver, a rate must be filed with the Commission at least 60 days before a public utility can charge that rate to a customer.83 However, if a utility files an otherwise just and reasonable cost-based rate after new service has commenced, the Commission will require the utility to refund to its customers the time value of the revenues collected for the entire period that the rate was collected without Commission authorization.84 Such refunds are in addition to any refunds which may be required if the proposed rate is not found to be just and 82 E.ON Rehearing Order, 142 FERC ¶ 61,048 at P 34. 83 16 U.S.C. § 824d (2012); 18 C.F.R. § 35.3 (2019). 84 El Paso Electric Co., 105 FERC ¶ 61,131, at P 19 (2003) (citing Prior Notice, 64 FERC ¶ 61,139 at 61,979).
Substantive Matters. We accept the AEP Agreement, effective May 1, 2018, as requested. As discussed above, in the May 2018 Order, the Commission accepted Tariff revisions that require SPP to include, in transmission service and generator interconnection agreements, “a list of those upgrades associated with the agreement that are eligible for credits ”60
Substantive Matters. We reject XXXx’s non-conforming Xxxxx LGIA as inconsistent with Order No. 2003.34 In Order No. 2003-A, the Commission found that transmission provider’s interconnection facilities are direct assignment facilities owned by the transmission provider on the interconnection customer’s side of the point of interconnection whereas 31 Id. 32 PSCo February 18, 2020 Answer at 2. 33 PSCo Notice of Withdrawal of Prior Motion at 2-4. 34 Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 (2003), order on reh’g, Order No. 2003-A, 106 FERC ¶ 61,220, order on reh’g, Order No. 2003-B, 109 FERC ¶ 61,287 (2004), order on reh’g, Order No. 2003-C, 111 FERC ¶ 61,401 (2005), aff'd sub nom. Nat’l Ass’n of Regulatory Util. Comm’rs v. FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1230 (2008). the transmission provider’s transmission system consists of facilities at or beyond the point of interconnection.35 The reactive support upgrades at issue here will be located between the point of change of ownership and the point of interconnection, which would define them as transmission provider’s interconnection facilities under Order No. 2003. Accordingly, under the Commission’s policy, the costs of these upgrades should be directly assigned to the interconnection customer, and not allocated to transmission customers as network upgrades. Further, XXXx has failed to meet its burden to justify its proposed modification to the definition of network upgrades so that the reactive support upgrades are ultimately recovered from all transmission customers. The Commission has stated that “a transmission provider seeking a case-specific deviation from its pro forma interconnection agreement bears a high burden to justify and explain that its changes are not merely ‘consistent with or superior to’ the pro forma agreement, but are necessary changes.”36 Necessary changes may include those that address specific reliability concerns, novel legal issues, or other unique factors.37 We find that PSCo has not met its burden to demonstrate why these changes are necessary to address specific reliability concerns, novel legal issues, or other unique factors. XXXx seeks to justify its proposed changes, stating that the deviations are consistent with Order Nos. 807 and 827. However, we disagree with XXXx’s interpretation that the Commission’s policy that reactive support upgrades required in addition to the support provided by the generator an...
