New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
Complainant

PJM Interconnection, LLC, New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Consolidated Edison Company of

New York, Inc., Linden VFT, LLC, Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC, and New York Power Authority

Respondents

)
)
)
)

)Docket No. EL18-54-000
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ANSWER TO COMMENTS OF THE

NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC.

In accordance with Rule 213 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 the
New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (“NYISO”), respectfully submits this answer to
the Comments of the Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc. (“IPPNY”) and the
Comments of the Indicated New York Generators (the “NYGenerators”; IPPNY and the New
York Generators together “IPPNY/NYGenerators”) in this proceeding. As discussed below,
IPPNY/NYGenerators are attempting to introduce issues that were not raised by the New Jersey
Board of Public Utilities (“NJBPU”) in the Complaint2 that initiated this case. These new issues
need not be addressed to fully dispose of or resolve the issues that actually were raised in the

1 18 C.F.R. 385.213 (2017).

2 Complaint of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, Docket No. EL18-54-000 (December 22,

2017).

Complaint. IPPNY/NYGenerators’ arguments are thus beyond the scope of this proceeding and should not be considered here.

I.REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER

Rule 213 authorizes answers to pleadings styled as comments as a matter of right.

Accordingly, the NYISO is permitted by rule to respond to other parties’ comments.

If, however, the Commission were to deem this pleading to be tantamount to a response
to an answer or a protest then the NYISO would respectfully ask that the Commission exercise
its discretion to permit the NYISO to answer IPPNY/NYGenerators. The Commission routinely
accepts answers that would otherwise be unauthorized when they help to clarify complex issues,
provide additional information, or are otherwise helpful in the development of the record in a
proceeding.3 This answer will assist the Commission in its disposition of this case by

highlighting issues that are clearly beyond the scope of the proceeding.

II.ANSWER

A.IPPNY/NYGenerators Impermissibly Attempt to Inject Issues into this

Proceeding that Are Clearly Beyond its Scope

1. The Commission Should Not Consider the Eligibility of Linden VFT

or Hudson Transmission Partners (“HTP”) to Be Used to Sell
Capacity in the New York Control Area in this Proceeding

IPPNY asks the Commission to use this docket to determine that “the PJM and NYISO
tariffs, past Commission orders, and the core distinction between firm and non-firm transmission
service prohibit Linden VFT and HTP from continuing to supply installed capacity (“ICAP”)

3 See e.g., Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 162 FERC ¶ 61,176 at P 55 (2018) (accepting answers to otherwise unauthorized pleadings, “because they have provided information that assisted us in our decision-making process.”); New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 108 FERC ¶ 61,188 at P 7 (2004) (accepting the NYISO’s answer to protests because it provided information that aided the Commission in better understanding the matters at issue in the proceeding); Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 93 FERC ¶ 61,017 at 61,036 (2000) (accepting an answer that was “helpful in the development of the record ”).

over their transmission lines to NYISO.”4 Specifically, they request that the Commission, “order PJM and the NYISO: (i) to recognize the post-Conversion non-firm curtailable properties of
these lines; and (ii) because these lines cannot show they have firm service to the New York
border and no longer meet the definition of an Installed Capacity Supplier to prohibit further ICAP sales to NYISO Zone J across these lines.”5 IPPNY contends further that PJM and the NYISO’s alleged “erroneous tariff interpretations” jeopardize reliability in both regions and
threaten to “artificially suppress” capacity prices in New York.6

IPPNY/NYGenerators are impermissibly attempting to inject multiple new issues into
this proceeding that were not raised by the NJBPU. The Complaint is concerned with various
questions related to PJM Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (“RTEP”) cost allocations to
New York entities and the interpretation of the Joint Operating Agreement between PJM and the
NYISO. The Complaint does not ask for the relief sought by IPPNY/NYGenerators.7 It makes
no mention of the NYISO tariff provision that IPPNY/NYGenerators claim the NYISO is

misinterpreting. The Complaint likewise does not address the supposed impacts of capacity sales by Installed Capacity Suppliers8 using Linden VFT and HTP on reliability or capacity prices in New York. All of the issues raised by the Complaint can (and should) be fully resolved without reference to the new claims that IPPNY/NYGenerators are seeking to introduce.

4 See Comments of Independent Power Producers of New York (“IPPNY”) at 2. See also
Comments of the Indicated New York Generators at 2, 3 (stating their Comments support IPPNY).

5 IPPNY at 3, 15-16.

6 IPPNY at 3, 14-15.

7 See Complaint at 4, 50-52, 60-61 (setting forth NJBPU’s request for relief.)

8 Installed Capacity Supplier is a term defined in Section 2.9 of the NYISO’s Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff (“Services Tariff”).

IPPNY/NYGenerators make no attempt to justify using this proceeding to advance their
arguments. They, as stated by IPPNY, argue that the “ultimate dispute” in the docket is whether
New York entities “should be able to avoid their proportionate share of the costs of RTEP
projects, specifically, the $1.2 billion Bergen-Linden Corridor Project . . . by converting their
Firm TWRs to Non-Firm TWRs.”9 In fact, NYGenerators oppose the relief actually sought by
the NJBPU.10 Nevertheless, IPPNY/NYGenerators seek to use this proceeding to advance their
own agenda.

The Commission has consistently rejected attempts by third parties to inject new issues
into complaint proceedings that were not raised by complainants.11 It should follow its
precedent here and reject IPPNY/NYGenerators’ arguments for being outside the scope of the
Complaint. This is especially true in this instance because, as the NYISO explained in its
February 23 Answer, the Complaint itself is an impermissible attempt to collaterally attack
settled determinations and to needlessly rehash questions already being litigated elsewhere.12
Allowing IPPNY/NYGenerators to further expand the scope of a complaint that should be
rejected would only increase the litigation burdens that have already been needlessly imposed on
the NYISO and other respondents.

9 IPPNY at 3-4.

10 See NYGenerators at 2 (“As explained herein and in the IPPNY Comments, the Commission should reject the assertions in the Complaint that Linden VFT and HTP are responsible for [RTEP] costs associated with the [BLC] project.”); and 11-12.

11 See, e.g., La Paloma Generating Company, LLC. v. California Independent System Operator
Corporation, 158 FERC ¶ 61,002 at P 32 (2016) (rejecting requests by commenters that were beyond the scope of the underlying complaint in a proceeding); Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 155 FERC ¶ 61,058 at PP 94, 187
(2016); (rejecting arguments that were not raised in underlying complaint as beyond the scope of
complaint); Tampa Electric Company, et al., 110 FERC ¶ 61,206 at P 35 (2005) (Commission declined to make findings requested by protest submitted in Section 206 proceeding where the protest raised issues
outside the scope of the proceeding).

12 NYISO Answer at Section I.A.

Accordingly, the Commission should reject IPPNY/NYGenerators’ concerns and assertions as an impermissible attempt to expand the Complaint.

B.IPPNY/NYGenerators Are Wrong to Claim that the NYISO Has

Misinterpreted its Tariff

For the reasons set forth above, it would not be appropriate to consider

IPPNY/NYGenerators’ arguments regarding capacity sales into the New York Control Area

(“NYCA”) using the Linden VFT and HTP to supply capacity to the NYCA in this proceeding. The NYISO would briefly note, however, that the recent statements it made to stakeholders on this point, which are cited by IPPNY/NYGenerators,13 are fully consistent with the controlling provision of the Services Tariff.

Specifically, the NYISO has informed stakeholders, most recently in a January 17, 2018
presentation at the stakeholder Business Issues Committee that: “[b]ased on the NYISO’s current
understanding and its discussions with PJM, External ICAP that procures Long Term Firm Point-
to-Point Out Service with receipt at the source of the External ICAP (or equivalent) and
delivered to the UDR Point of Interconnection within PJM is eligible to satisfy the NYISO UDR
deliverability provisions of [Services Tariff Section] 5.12.2.1.”14 Section 5.12.2.1 provides that
holders of UDRs, i.e., customers of Linden VFT and HTP, are eligible to sell capacity in the
NYCA, “if they demonstrate to satisfaction of the NYISO that the Installed Capacity Equivalent
of their Unforced Capacity is deliverable to … the NYCA interface associated with that UDR
transmission facility and will not be recalled or curtailed by an External Control Area to satisfy

13 See, e.g., IPPNY at 9.

14 Zachary T. Smith, Proposed ICAP Manual Revisions Regarding Deliverability Requirements for Capacity Imports from PJM, NYISO (Jan. 17, 2018), at 2, available at:

<http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/markets_operations/committees/bic/meeting_materials/2018-01-
17/5%20Import%20Right%20Deliverability%20Requirements%20final.pdf>. Unforced Capacity
Deliverability Rights (“UDRs”) is a term defined in Section 2.21 of the Services Tariff.

its own Control Area Loads.” The key question is thus whether such entities have made the

required demonstration to the NYISO’s satisfaction.15 The NYISO is satisfied at this time that
holders of UDRs associated with the Linden VFT facility meet the requirement of Section

5.12.2.1.16

In addition, IPPNY claims that “allowing the impermissible export of ICAP over the
Linden VFT line has artificially suppressed - and will continue to artificially suppress - the
ICAP clearing prices in all of New York.”17 Even if this claim fell within the scope of this
proceeding, which it does not, it should be rejected because it is unsupported.
IPPNY/NYGenerators’ have not proffered evidence of capacity market price suppression in the
NYCA, let alone of suppression attributable to transactions using the Linden VFT. They have
not shown that price suppression in New York occurred either before Linden VFT relinquished
its Firm Transmission Withdrawal Rights or after it secured Long Term Point to Point Service
for use by its UDR rightsholders (i.e., its customers)18 to support their capacity transactions.
If IPPNY/NYGenerators believe that the NYISO’s market rules allow holders of UDRs associated with the Linden VFT19 to suppress NYISO capacity market prices, they should, in the

15 Whether an external Control Area imposes a charge on services under its own tariff, in this case an RTEP cost allocation under the PJM tariff rules, has no bearing on whether a transaction is permissible under the NYISO’s rules.

16 The NYISO will evaluate the eligibility of transactions proposed by HTP’s UDR rightsholders under its Services Tariff if and when proposed.

17 IPPNY at 15. See also NYGenerators at 4-5.

18 Holders of UDRs are referred to in the NYISO’s market as “UDR rightsholders”. These

entities are the “customers” of the UDR facility (at issue in this proceeding, the Linden VFT and HTP.)

19 IPPNY/NYGenerators further confuse the record by asserting the Linden VFT facility no

longer meets the NYISO tariff definition of “Installed Capacity Supplier.” See, e.g., IPPNY at 3, IPPNY Affidavit of Mark D Younger at PP 13, 15. It is the UDR rightsholders; i.e., the entities that offer
capacity into the NYISO’s market using controllable transmission lines line, that must meet qualify as Installed Capacity Suppliers.

first instance, propose revisions to the NYISO’s tariffs through the NYISO’s stakeholder

process. The Linden VFT has been in service since 2010 and holders of UDRs associated with it have been using those rights to participate in the NYISO’s market since that time, and yet no stakeholder has ever offered such a proposal.

Accordingly, in addition to being outside the scope of the Complaint, the Commission
should reject IPPNY/NYGenerators’ comments because they are incorrect and unsupported.

III.CONCLUSION

For the reasons specified above, the NYISO respectfully requests that the Commission

find that the issues raised and the relief sought by IPPNY/NYGenerators are outside the scope of this proceeding and therefore reject them.

Respectfully submitted,

NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC.

By: /s/ Gloria Kavanah

Counsel to the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

10 Krey Blvd.

Rensselaer, New York 12144 (518) 356-6000

Ted J. Murphy

Hunton & Williams LLP

2200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20037
(202) 955-1500

Dated: March 12, 2018

cc:Anna CochraneLarry Parkinson

James DanlyArnold Quinn

Jette GebhartDouglas Roe

Kurt LongoKathleen Schnorf

David MorenoffGary Will

Daniel Nowak