UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
New York Association of Public Power)
)
Complainant,)
)
v.)Docket No. EL14-29-000
)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation,)
d/b/a National Grid, and)
)
New York Independent)
System Operator, Inc.)
)
Respondents.)
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF
THE NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC.
Pursuant to Rule 2121 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (“Commission”), the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
(“NYISO”) moves for dismissal with prejudice of the NYISO as a party to this proceeding.2
This proceeding was initiated by the complaint, filed on February 6, 2014 in the above captioned docket, by the New York Association of Public Power (“Complainant”) against Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a National Grid (“Niagara Mohawk”) and the NYISO
(“Complaint”). There are no allegations against the NYISO in the Complaint.
1 18 C.F.R. 385.212 (2014).
2 The Complaint identifies the NYISO as a respondent without making any substantive allegation against the
NYISO. As such the NYISO had no reason to submit an answer on February 26, 2014. Because the NYISO has no
direct interest the complaint proceeding and is willing to comply with a Commission order, the NYISO is filing this
motion to dismiss. To the extent the Commission deems this motion to dismiss to be a later filed answer, the
NYISO requests leave to submit it out-of-time. The NYISO has filed similar motions to dismiss in Docket Nos.
EL12-101-000 and ER13-16-000 where similar complaints were filed regarding Niagara Mohawk’s transmission
rates that identified the NYISO as a respondent without making any substantive allegations against the NYISO.
Consistent with Commission precedent,3 dismissal should be granted because the NYISO
is not the beneficiary, nor is it responsible for establishing the level of Niagara Mohawk’s rate of
return on equity (“ROE”) used in transmission services rates, as reflected in Niagara Mohawk’s
Wholesale Transmission Service Charge (“TSC”).4 The NYISO is a not-for-profit corporation
that neither directly receives a portion of the payments made using the TSC nor invoices the
TSC. The NYISO simply administers the Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”) in which
the Niagara Mohawk TSC is described. The NYISO would administratively submit through
eTariff any revisions to its OATT that the Commission orders Niagara Mohawk to make in this
proceeding; however, the NYISO is not properly a party to this proceeding.
I.BACKGROUND
Niagara Mohawk’s TSC is calculated using a formula rate contained in Attachment H to
the NYISO OATT, which includes the ROE for Niagara Mohawk. It is annually recalculated
using updated data inputs called for in the formula rate; however, the ROE is not updated. The
Complaint alleges that the current ROE is unjust and unreasonable. It also requests that the
Commission institute paper hearing procedures to investigate Niagara Mohawk’s ROE,
establishing the earliest possible refund date and directing refunds.5
Significantly, the Complainant admits that Niagara Mohawk “is the real party in interest for purposes of this Complaint.”6 Additionally, Complainant explains that it “has named the
3 Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Attorney General, et al. v. Bangor Hyrdo-Electric Co., et al., 139 FERC ¶ 61,090 at P23 (2012).
4 Capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined in this filing shall have the meaning specified in the NYISO’s
Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”), and if not defined therein, in the NYISO Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff (“Services Tariff”).
5 Complaint at 2.
6 Id. at 4.
2
NYISO as a respondent only because [Niagara Mohawk’s] ROE is a stated value in the NYISO OATT.”7
II.MOTION TO DISMISS
The Commission should promptly dismiss the NYISO as a party to this proceeding.
There is no reason to require the NYISO to expend resources to answer the Complaint or
participate in this proceeding. It is unnecessary for the NYISO to be a party because it will have no role in considering, or formulating any change to the Niagara Mohawk’s ROE, if such a
change is ultimately ordered by the Commission. The NYISO is simply the appropriate entity
for administering revisions to the OATT under the Commission’s eTariff system.
As admitted by Complainant, the ROE is reflected in the TSC, which is a Niagara
Mohawk rate. The ROE reflected in those rates is not the NYISO’s. The NYISO has no ROE
because it is a not-for-profit corporation. Therefore, any order to change the ROE would be
directed at Niagara Mohawk, not the NYISO. Because the NYISO’s role is purely
administrative with respect to the ROE at issue in the Complaint, NYISO’s lack of pecuniary
interest, and Complainant’s own admission that Niagara Mohawk is the party in interest, the
Commission should dismiss the NYISO as a party to this Complaint. The Commission has
granted a motion to dismiss under similar circumstances.8
7 Id., at 4-5 citing, NYISO OATT, Attachment H-1, Schedule 8, line nos. 10 and 19.
8 Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Attorney General, et al. v. Bangor Hydro-Electric Co., et al., 139 FERC ¶ 61,090 at P23 (2012).
3
III.COMMUNICATIONS
Communications regarding this pleading should be addressed as follows:
Robert E. Fernandez, General Counsel
Raymond Stalter, Director of Regulatory Affairs *Nathan D. Markey, Attorney
New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
10 Krey Boulevard
Rensselaer, NY 12144
Tel: (518) 356-6000
Fax: (518) 356-4702
rfernandez@nyiso.com
rstalter@nyiso.com
nmarkey@nyiso.com
*Persons designated to receive service
IV.CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc., respectfully requests the Commission grant its motion for dismissal.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nathan D. Markey
Nathan D. Markey Attorney
New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
March 20, 2014
cc:Michael Bardee
Gregory Berson
Anna Cochrane
Jignasa Gadani
Morris Margolis
Michael McLaughlin
David Morenoff
Daniel Nowak
4
