Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation By Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities

Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.

New York Independent System Operator,
Inc.

California Independent System Operator Corporation

)Docket No. RM10-23-000
)

)
)

)Docket No. ER13-101-000
)

)

)Docket No. ER13-102-000
)

)

)Docket No. ER13-103-000
)

ISO/RTO COUNCIL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO SUBMIT ANSWERS TO COMMENTS

Pursuant to Rules 101(e) and 212 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”), 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.101(e) &

385.212 (2012), the ISO/RTO Council (the “IRC”)1 respectfully submits this motion for an
extension of time for filing answers to comments submitted on any ISO/RTO Order No.

1 The IRC is comprised of the Independent System Operators operating as the Alberta Electric System

Operator (“AESO”), the California Independent System Operator (“CAISO”), Electric Reliability Council of
Texas (“ERCOT”), the Independent Electricity System Operator of Ontario, Inc., (“IESO”), ISO New
England, Inc. (“ISONE”), Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., (“MISO”), New York
Independent System Operator, Inc. (“NYISO”), PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”), and Southwest Power
Pool, Inc. (“SPP”). This motion is being made by all ISOs and RTOs that have filed Order No. 1000
compliance filings and that will make compliance filings under extensions granted by the Commission. PJM,
ISO-NE and SPP have not yet made their Order No. 1000 compliance filings, and do not yet have assigned
docket numbers for those filings. The IESO, AESO, and ERCOT are not subject to the Commission’s
jurisdiction, and these comments do not constitute agreement or acknowledgement that these entities can be
subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. The AESO, ERCOT and IESO do not join in this filing. The IRC’s
mission is to work collaboratively to develop effective processes, tools and standard methods for improving
the competitive electricity markets across North America. In fulfilling this mission, it is the IRC’s goal to
provide a perspective that balances reliability standards with market practices so that each complements the
other, thereby resulting in efficient, robust markets that provide competitive and reliable service to customers.

DMEAST #15846022 v2

10002 compliance filings.3 As explained more specifically below, the IRC requests a fortyfive (45) day answer period following the comment date the Commission ultimately
establishes for each ISO/RTO Order No. 1000 compliance filing.

I.BACKGROUND

Order Nos. 1000, 1000-A, and 1000-B amend the transmission planning and cost
allocation requirements established in Order No. 890. Order No. 1000 initially established
a compliance filing deadline of October 11, 2012, but the Commission has granted
extensions for several public utilities—including some IRC members.4
On October 15, 2012, LS Power Transmission, LLC and LSP Transmission
Holdings, LLC (collectively “LSP Transmission”) submitted its motion for an extension of
time, until December 10, 2012, for the submission of interventions and comments in
response to Order Nos. 1000 and 1000-A compliance filings submitted on October 11,
2012, or to be submitted October 25, 2012 and November 12, 2012. LSP Transmission
submitted the motion in what appears to be every proceeding with a pending Order No.
1000 compliance filing, plus the overarching rulemaking docket, to apply to any Order No.
1000 compliance filings that have not yet been submitted. Due to the Thanksgiving holiday
“and the staggered compliance filing dates,” LSP Transmission requests that the
Commission extend the comment period until December 10, 2012 for Order No. 1000

2 Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Order
No. 1000, 76 Fed. Reg. 49,842 (Aug. 11, 2011), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,323 (2011), order on reh’g, Order
No. 1000-A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132 (2012), order on reh’g, Order No. 1000-B, 141 FERC ¶ 61,044 (2012).

3 The IRC and its members have actively participated in the Order No. 1000 rulemaking proceeding, Docket No. RM10-23-000. The IRC moves to intervene in the additional proceedings listed herein to the extent necessary to for the Commission to consider this motion.

4 New England Transmission Owners, Notice of Extension of Time, Docket No. RM10-23-000 (Oct. 10,

2012) (granting extension until October 25, 2012); Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., Notice of Extension of Time (Oct. 10, 2012) (same); PJM Interconnection, LLC, Notice of Extension of Time,
Docket No. RM10-23-000 (same); Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Notice of Extension of Time, Docket No. RM10-23-000 (July 13, 2012) (granting extension until November 12).

DMEAST #15846022 v2

compliance filings due by October 11, 2012, October 25, 2012, and November 12, 2012 (i.e., 60 days after compliance filings submitted on October 11, 2012; 45 days after compliance filings submitted on October 25, 2012; and 28 days after compliance filings submitted on November 12, 2012).5

On October 17, 2012, the American Wind Energy Association (“AWEA”)

submitted a motion to extend the comment period to 60 days from the original compliance
filing date for the Order No. 1000 compliance filings, i.e., until December 10, 2012 for the
First Set of Compliance Filings (consistent with LSP Transmission’s request), a December
24, 2012 comment deadline for the Second Set, and a January 11, 2013 comment deadline
for the Third Set.

On October 22, 2012, Pattern Transmission LP filed an answer to the LSP

Transmission and AWEA motions expressing a preference for AWEA’s requested sixty

(60) day comment period for all Order No. 1000 compliance filings.

II. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMMENTS

The IRC requests on behalf of its members an extension of time to file answers to
comments submitted on the Order No. 1000 compliance filings filed by ISOs/RTOs. Rule
213(d)(1), 18 C.F.R. § 213(d)(1), provides fifteen (15) days for an answer to a motion or to
an amendment to a motion. As the Commission has explained, this time frame applies to
comments as well.6 The IRC requests that the Commission expand this fifteen (15) day

5 LSP Transmission did not request an extension of time for Order No. 1000 compliance filings due on other days. See, e.g., Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Notice of Extension of Time, Docket No. RM10-23-000 (Oct. 1, 2012) (granting Alcoa Power
Generating Inc.an extension until February 8, 2013); MATL, LLP, Notice of Extension of Time, Docket No. RM10-23-000 (granting extension until January 31, 2013).

6 ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC, 133 FERC ¶ 61,187, P 13, n.21 (2010) (“Rules 213(a)(3) and 213(d) of the

Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.213(a)(3), (d), permit all timely answers to comments.”).

DMEAST #15846022 v2

time limit to forty-five (45) days following the comment date the Commission ultimately establishes for each ISO/RTO Order No. 1000 compliance filing.

In accordance with Rule 101(e),7 good cause exists for the Commission to grant this
request. As the Commission is well aware, development of each ISO/RTO’s Order No.
1000 compliance filing entails substantial changes to the applicable open access
transmission tariffs (“OATTs”). Each IRC member has developed and vetted its
compliance proposals through extensive stakeholder processes that attracted broad and
active participation by numerous interested parties. In light of the magnitude of the OATT
changes involved, the IRC expects each ISO/RTO Order No. 1000 compliance filing will
attract detailed comments from many customers and stakeholders. Absent a grant of this
motion, each ISO/RTO will face the need to review numerous comments in a limited period
of time. The fifteen-day time period provided by Rule 213 was not developed with a
massive submittal in mind like an Order No. 1000 compliance filing. Providing additional
time for the submission of answers will allow each ISO/RTO to coordinate internally with
the relevant personnel involved in the development of the Order No. 1000 changes to
provide higher-caliber and more thorough responsive comments, thereby improving the
quality of information before the Commission as it rules on the compliance filings.
The basis for this motion is similar to that of the LSP Transmission and AWEA extension motions.8 The LSP Transmission and AWEA motions are premised on the large number of compliance filings they plan to review. The IRC members likewise expect
customers and stakeholders will submit numerous and detailed comments that will require

7 18 C.F.R. § 101(e) (providing that “the Commission may, for good cause, waive any provision of this part or prescribe any alternative procedures that it determines to be appropriate”).

8 The IRC neither supports nor opposes LSP Transmission’s October 15, 2012 motion or AWEA’s October 17, 2012 motion.

DMEAST #15846022 v2

additional time to address appropriately. Such comments are likely to be even more

extensive, and require more detailed responses by IRC members, if the Commission

extends the comment date for the Order No. 1000 compliance filings in accordance with the LSP Transmission or AWEA motions.

The IRC’s motion is also supported by the circumstances that would develop if LSP
Transmission’s December 10 comment date is granted. Under the fifteen (15) day time
limit provided in Rule 213, any ISO and RTO answers to comments on their respective
filings would be due on December 26, 2012 - the day after Christmas. Just as LSP
Transmission expresses concern about how the Thanksgiving holiday could impact its
ability to file comments/protests the Monday after Thanksgiving, the IRC is concerned that
its members’ key technical and planning personnel may have already arranged time off
during the week preceding Christmas and through the holidays. The unavailability of these
personnel would make it more difficult to present the Commission with a full response, so
that it may create a complete record for decision-making on the compliance filings.

DMEAST #15846022 v2

III.CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated here, the IRC respectfully requests that the Commission grant this motion to extend the answer time limit to comments submitted for each ISO/RTO
Order No. 1000 compliance filing to forty-five (45) days.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nancy Saracino/s/ Carl F. Patka

Nancy SaracinoCarl F. Patka*

General CounselAssistant General Counsel

Anthony IvancovichRaymond Stalter

Deputy General Counsel, Regulatory*Director of Regulatory Affairs

Anna McKennaNew York Independent System Operator,

Assistant General Counsel, RegulatoryInc.

California Independent System Operator10 Krey Blvd

CorporationRensselaer, New York 12144

151 Blue Ravine Roadcpatka@nyiso.com

Folsom, California 95630

amckenna@caiso.com

/s/ Matthew Morais/s/ Craig Glazer

Matthew Morais*Craig Glazer*

Assistant General CounselVice President-Federal Government Policy

Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

2705 West Lake DriveSuite 600

Taylor, Texas 765741200 G Street, N.W.

mmorais@ercot.comWashington, D.C. 20005

202-423-4743

glazec@pjm.com

/s/ Theodore J. Paradise/s/ Paul Suskie

Raymond W. HepperPaul Suskie*

Vice President, General Counsel, andSenior Vice President, Regulatory Policy

Secretaryand General Counsel

Theodore J. Paradise*Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

Assistant General Counsel, Operations and415 North McKinley, Suite 140

PlanningLittle Rock, Arkansas 72205

ISO New England Inc.psuskie@spp.org

One Sullivan Road

Holyoke, Massachusetts 01040

tparadise@iso-ne.com

DMEAST #15846022 v2

/s/ Stephen G. Kozey

Stephen G. Kozey*

Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary

Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.

P.O. Box 4202

Carmel, Indiana 46082-4202

skozey@midwestiso.org

* = persons designated to receive service

Dated: October 24, 2012

DMEAST #15846022 v2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon the parties
designated on the official service list for the above-captioned dockets in accordance with
the requirements of Rule 2010 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18

C.F.R. § 385.2010 (2012).

Dated at Washington, D.C. on this 25th day of October 2012.

/s/ Daniel R. Simon

Daniel R. Simon
Ballard Spahr LLP

1909 K Street NW, 12th Floor
Washington, DC 20006-1157

DMEAST #15846022 v2