Howard H. Shafferman
Direct: 202.661.2205
Fax: 202.626.9036
hhs@ballardspahr.com
October 1, 2012
By Electronic Filing
Hon. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Subject: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. and International
Transmission Company d/b/a ITCTransmission, Docket No. ER11-1844-000; Objection of The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. to Proposed Transcript Corrections of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Agreement
Resolving Transcript Correction Differences Between The New York
Independent System Operator, Inc. and the Joint Applicants
Dear Ms. Bose:
Attached please find the Objection of New York Independent System Operator, Inc. to the
Proposed Transcript Corrections of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Agreement Resolving
Transcript Correction Differences Between New York Independent System Operator, Inc. and the Joint Applicants.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Howard H. Shafferman
Howard H. Shafferman
Counsel for New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
cc:Parties of Record
Atlanta|Baltimore|Bethesda|Denver|Las Vegas|Los Angeles|New Jersey|Philadelphia|Phoenix|Salt Lake City|San Diego
Washington, DC|Wilmington|www.ballardspahr.com
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc. andDocket No. ER11-1844-000
International Transmission Company d/b/a ITCTransmission
OBJECTIONS OF THE NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC. TO
THE PROPOSED TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS OF
PJM INTERCONNECTION, L.L.C. AND
AGREEMENT RESOLVING TRANSCRIPT CORRECTION DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC. AND
THE JOINT APPLICANTS
To: Honorable Steven L. Sterner
Presiding Administrative Law Judge
I. NYISO Objection to Transcript Corrections Proposed by PJM
Pursuant to Rule 510(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R.
§ 385.510(b) (2012), and the Presiding Administrative Law Judge’s August 29, 2012, Order
Revising Procedural Schedule, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (“NYISO”)
hereby objects to the following proposed transcript corrections of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
("PJM"):
Page 758, Line 3: Replace “under your” with “on NYISO;” and
Page 758, Line 4: Replace the word “then” with the word “a.”
The relevant transcript language is a question by Mr. Spector on cross-examination of Dr. Shavel. The transcript currently reads as follows:
DMEAST #15731592 v21
Q And scheduled transactions are a far, far
smaller portion of the loop flow that PJM places under your then generation to load; correct?
A Of PJM, correct.
As proposed to be corrected by PJM, this question would read as follows:
Q And scheduled transactions are a far, far
smaller portion of the loop flow that PJM places under your on NYISO then a generation to load; correct?
A Of PJM, correct.
The NYISO agrees with PJM that a correction is appropriate. The NYISO proposes the following alternative correction to this portion of the transcript:
Page 758, Line 3: Add the words “on NYISO” after the word “places.” Add the word "calculation" after the word "your"; and
Page 758, Line 4: Replace the word “then” with the word “than.”
Under NYISO's proposed alternative correction, the relevant language would read as follows:
Q And scheduled transactions are a far, far
smaller portion of the loop flow that PJM places on NYISO under your calculation
then than generation to load; correct? A Of PJM, correct.
PJM’s question is asked while discussing Dr. Shavel’s calculation of the impact that
implementing the buy-through of congestion proposal would have on PJM. The NYISO believes the question was referring to the calculation Dr. Shavel performed, as opposed to a general
DMEAST #15731592 v22
statement that scheduled transactions are a far smaller portion of loop flow that PJM places on NYISO. The NYISO’s position is consistent with a response that Dr. Shavel provides later on the same page of the transcript:
Q You haven’t analyzed the impact of scheduled
transactions of flows on the New York system? A That is correct.
NYISO submits that it is unlikely that the court reporter included in the transcript two
words that were never uttered. NYISO believes its proposed correction is more faithful to the
context and more in conformance with the evidence presented and the truth as required by Rule 510(b)(1). For the foregoing reasons, NYISO proposes a slightly different alternative correction which captures PJM's correction and "conforms the transcript to the evidence presented at the
hearing and to the truth."1
II. NYISO Agreement with MISO and ITC Regarding Transcript Corrections
NYISO has reached an agreement with the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) and the International Transmission Company d/b/a ITCTransmission (“ITC”) (together, "Joint Applicants") regarding the differences between their proposed
transcript corrections.
NYISO has been authorized, by counsel for the Joint Applicants, to state that Joint
Applicants have agreed to support transcript corrections Nos. 82 and 89 proposed by NYISO to replace transcript correction Nos. 36 and 41 proposed by the Joint Applicants.
NYISO's proposed transcript corrections Nos. 82 and 89 are the following:
1
See Rule 510(b)(1), 18 C.F.R. § 385.510(b)(1) (2012).
No.DatePageLineCurrent TextProposed Revised
NumberNumberText
RangeRange
829/11/20128034no disagreeno reason to disagree
899/11/201284124your knowledgemy knowledge
These replace the following Joint Applicants' proposed transcript corrections:
No.DatePageLineCurrent TextProposed Revised
NumberNumberText
RangeRange
369/11/20128034DisagreeDisagreement
419/11/201284124your knowledgeOur
Further, NYISO has agreed to support transcript correction No. 48 proposed by the Joint
Applicants to replace correction No. 161 proposed by NYISO.
Joint Applicants' proposed transcript correction No. 48 is the following:
No.DatePageLineCurrent TextProposed Revised
NumberNumberText
RangeRange
489/12/201210297CellControl
This replaces the following NYISO proposed transcript correction:
No.DatePageLineCurrent TextProposed Revised
NumberNumberText
RangeRange
1619/12/201210297cell ofremoval of
DMEAST #15731592 v24
These agreements resolve the transcript correction differences between NYISO and Joint Applicants.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Howard H. Shafferman
Howard H. Shafferman
Counsel for New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Ballard Spahr LLP
1909 K Street, NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20006
202-661-2205
hhs@ballardspahr.com
Dated: October 1, 2012
DMEAST #15731592 v25
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 these proceedings.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this 1st day of October, 2012.
/s/ Jack Semrani
Jack Semrani
Ballard Spahr LLP
1909 K Street, N.W., 12th Floor Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 661-7640
1
DMEAST #15731592 v2
