As the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considers possible changes to its electric transmission incentives policy, it is vital that the federal agency consider the possible effects on consumers in the process, a large group of state utility regulators, industrial power customers, public power utilities, consumer advocates and related associations said.
The June 26 initial comments were filed at FERC in response to a notice of inquiry issued by FERC in March. The American Public Power Association signed on to the comments, along with several other parties, which are collectively referred to as “Joint Commenters.”
Among other issues, the transmission incentives NOI asks whether transmission incentives, rather than being tailored to the risks and challenges of a proposed transmission project, instead should be based on a project’s expected benefits. It also examines whether transmission incentives could better encourage enhancements to existing facilities and asks how evolving transmission technologies could be more thoughtfully considered in the context of the Commission’s transmission incentives policy.
With respect to transmission incentives in the form of adders to the return on equity (ROE) that transmission owners are allowed to recover in their rates, the NOI looks at the requirements for, the level of, and the design of these incentives, as well as their relationship to the calculation of base ROEs. With respect to non-ROE adder, risk-reducing transmission incentives, the NOI examines the design and value of some of these incentives, and whether there may be other potential risk reducing transmission incentives.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the Federal Power Act to add Section 219, which directed FERC to use transmission incentives to benefit consumers by helping ensure reliability and reduce the cost of delivered power by reducing transmission congestion.
In July 2006, FERC implemented FPA Section 219 by issuing Order No. 679, which established a number of incentive rate treatments, including ROE adders to compensate for the risks and challenges faced by a specific project, for forming a transmission-only company, or for joining an RTO or ISO.
Overall, the Joint Commenters said that the existing framework established under Order No. 679 and a 2012 Policy Statement for evaluating applications for project-specific incentives remains generally sound.
Improvements needed to current framework, group says
“While the Commission’s rules and policies for evaluating project-specific transmission incentive requests are generally appropriate, Joint Commenters recommend a number of improvements to the current framework, designed largely to better harmonize the Commission’s transmission planning and incentive policies,” the Association and the other entities said in their comments in the transmission incentives NOI proceeding.
Joint Commenters also recommended more substantial changes to the Commission’s policies for granting non-project-specific incentives, including the 50-basis point ROE adder that FERC generally awards to transmission owners that participate in a Commission-approved regional transmission organization or independent system operator.
The Joint Commenters also challenged FERC’s policies for granting ROE adders to transmission-only companies, or Transcos. The ROE adders for RTO/ISO participation and for Transcos should be eliminated entirely, or at least substantially reformed, the Joint Commenters argued.
The Joint Commenters said that if the Commission maintains some form of Transco incentive, it should only be available to entities that are fully independent of market participants, and the incentive should not apply to assets acquired by Transcos.
“Where such changes are needed to the Commission’s incentive rate policies, it is because the current approach does not adhere to the requirements of FPA section 219 and well-established principles governing just and reasonable incentive rates, including that incentives must benefit consumers, must not be more than necessary to encourage the desired outcomes, and must not be awarded to encourage actions that utilities are already obligated to take.”
The Joint Commenters argued that FERC’s current rules and policies for RTO participation adders and incentive adders for Transcos “do not adhere to the applicable statutory and judicial requirements for incentive rates, and to the extent that these generous ROE adders were ever justified, they are no longer supportable in their current form.”
Impact on customers
The Association and the other parties said that an increase in transmission investment in recent years has caused a corresponding rise in the transmission costs paid by customers in many regions of the country.
“These transmission cost increases have imposed a significant burden on consumers, and the Commission should not add to this burden by making it easier for applicants to receive incentives, particularly return-enhancing incentives, that are not needed to promote beneficial transmission development.”
Indeed, a recurring theme in the parties’ transmission incentives NOI comments is the need for FERC to keep consumers front of mind as the agency mulls possible transmission incentive changes.
For example, the Joint Commenters said that if the Commission were to change its rules and grant incentives based on an “expected benefits” or “project characteristics” approach, it should condition any approval of project-specific incentives upon:
- The project being approved in the regional transmission planning process;
- The submission of evidence demonstrating that there is a causal relationship between each incentive sought and the consumer benefits to be derived from that incentive; and
- A demonstration through a cost-benefit analysis that the benefits to be gained by consumers materially exceed the costs of the requested incentives.
Also, as part of its application for an incentive, a public utility should be required to submit a measurement and verification plan designed to track and quantify the consumer benefits generated by its project as well as compare actual data against the projections included in the initial application, the Association and the other commenters said.
FERC refers to electric utilities it regulates as “public” utilities; however, these are not municipal utilities, but rather investor-owned utilities.
In calling on FERC to eliminate the 50-basis point ROE adder granted for joining an RTO/ISO or remaining a member of an RTO/ISO, Joint Commenters argued that transmission owners in RTO/ISO regions derive benefits from their RTO/ISO participation, making it unnecessary to give them an ROE adder to encourage participation. If the Commission does not eliminate the adder altogether, Joint Commenters said, the adder should phase down over time to reflect the distinction between an incentive to encourage joining an RTO/ISO and one for voluntarily remaining an RTO/ISO member.
Also, project-specific ROE adders should sunset after 15 years, unless, prior to the sunset date, the Commission makes a determination that the adder is no longer needed or effective, the Joint Commenters said.
Base ROE NOI
The Association also joined with other parties in submitting comments on June 26 to FERC in response to a separate NOI that was issued the same day as the transmission incentives NOI.
The second NOI sought information and stakeholder views regarding whether, and if so how, the Commission should modify how it determines the ROE to be used in designing jurisdictional rates charged by “public utilities,” as well as interstate natural gas and oil pipelines. FERC sought comment on potential modifications to its approach to determining a just and reasonable base ROE for public utilities, as well as interstate natural gas and oil pipelines, in a number of areas.
In their comments, the Association and the other parties said that base ROEs should be set at, and adjusted to stay attuned to, the cost of equity, as that cost rises or falls over the years and that the approach used to estimate the cost of equity should achieve reasonably consistent and predictable results across cases and over time.
The parties also said that the approach used to identify the cost of equity should be designed to do that specific job well; FERC should not modify its base ROE policy with an eye toward increasing returns for policy purposes.