UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Independent Power Producers)

of New York, Inc.,)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.)Docket No. EL13-62-000

)

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.)

)

Respondent.)

INITIAL ANSWER OF THE

NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC.
OPPOSING FAST TRACK PROCESSING

Pursuant to Rule 213 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 the New
York Independent System Operator, Inc. (“NYISO”) respectfully submits this initial answer to
the Complaint Requesting Fast Track Processing of the Independent Power Producers of New
York, Inc. (“Complaint”) that was served at 4:45 PM on Friday, May 9, 2013. This initial answer explains why the Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc.’s (“Complainant’s”) request for fast track processing is unjustified, inconsistent with the Commission’s procedural rules, and should be rejected. The NYISO will answer the other elements of the Complaint by whatever
deadline is established by the Commission.

1 18 C.F.R. § 385.213 (2013).

Robert E. Fernandez, General Counsel Ray Stalter, Director of Regulatory Affairs *Gloria Kavanah, Senior 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

gkavanah@nyiso.com

*persons designated to receive service

II.INITIAL ANSWER

*Ted J. Murphy

Hunton & Williams LLP
2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037-1701 Tel: (202) 955-1500

Fax: (202) 778-2201
tmurphy@hunton.com

*Vanessa A. Colón2
Hunton & Williams LLP Bank of America Center Suite 4200

700 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (713) 229-5700
Fax: (713) 229-5782

vcolon@hunton.com

The Complaint claims that the NYISO’s Market Administration and Control Area

Services Tariff (“Services Tariff”) is unjust and unreasonable because it does not address alleged
exercises of “buyer-side” market power involving existing resources.3 As the NYISO will
explain in a subsequent answer on substantive issues, Complainant’s theory is novel, but flawed,
and it does not appear that any other market has adopted the kind of mitigation rules it seeks to
impose on NYISO Market Participants. For purposes of this initial answer, it is sufficient to note
that the Complaint seeks relief that would require revisions to the Services Tariff4 and includes

2 Waiver of the Commission’s regulations (18 C.F.R. § 385.203(b)(3) (2013)) is requested to the
extent necessary to permit service on counsel for the NYISO in both Houston, TX and Washington, DC.

3 See, e.g., Complaint at 1-2.

4 See Complaint at 33-38.

specific proposed revisions to effectuate one of its proposals.5 Complainant’s proposed revisions
were developed unilaterally. Its approach contravenes filed NYISO agreements (to which its
members are signatories), and Commission precedent, requiring that proposed tariff revisions be
reviewed through the NYISO’s “shared governance” process. That process requires the approval
of the Management Committee and the NYISO Board of Directors, before proposed tariff
revisions are submitted to the Commission under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act.
Complainant offers just a single paragraph in support of its request for fast tracking. It asserts that “[e]xpeditious processing” is needed because an existing resource has been used to exercise buyer-side market power since the February 2013 ICAP Spot Market Auction.6 The Complaint expressly requests expedited Commission action and the implementation of its
requested relief “immediately” upon the issuance of an order.7 Complainant’s request for fast
track processing is patently deficient and should be rejected. Rule 206(b)(11) is clear that the
burden is on a party requesting fast track processing to “[e]xplain . . . why the standard processes
will be not be adequate for expeditiously resolving the complaint.” There must be “a highly
credible claim and persuasive showing that standard processes will not be capable of resolving
the complaint promptly enough to provide meaningful relief.”8 Complainant has made no such
showing.

Commission precedent is also clear that fast track processing is not suited for “complex
issues” including specifically when a complaint seeks changes to tariff provisions that it alleges

5 See Complaint at n. 130.

6 Capitalized terms that are not defined herein shall have the meaning specified in Attachment H to the NYISO’s Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff (“Services Tariff”).

7 See Complaint at 37.

8 See “Fast Track Procedures” (Updated June 28, 2010)

<http://www.ferc.gov/legal/complaints/form-comp/fast-track.asp#skipnav>.

are unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or otherwise in violation of Commission

regulations or policy.9 As noted above, the Complaint includes a number of proposed tariff revisions and raises complex market and tariff issues of first impression. Complainant’s
members have previously argued that the inherent complexity of buyer-side mitigation issues justified filing answers that would normally be prohibited under the Commission’s rules,10 or giving them additional time to respond to proposed tariff revisions.11 They are therefore in no position to claim that the issues they have raised are not complex.

Complainant’s request is also fundamentally unjustified and inequitable because it has
been fully aware of the issues raised in the Complaint for many months. Complainant itself
asserts that the purported market harm (i.e., the supposed “artificial suppression” of NYCA
capacity prices) occurred in the February 2013 ICAP Spot Market Auction. It bears emphasizing
that the results of that auction were posted in January 2013, three and one-half months before the
Complaint was filed. Moreover, Complainant has been fully aware since 2012 of the facts that
underlie the issues that are the subject of the Complaint.12 Indeed, their own papers highlight a

9 Amoco Energy Trading Corp., et al., 89 FERC ¶ 61,165 (1999). See also Iberdola Renewable Resources, Inc., et. al. v. Bonneville Power Administration, 137 FERC ¶ 61,185 (2011) (citing Amoco
Energy Trading Corp. et al., refusing to grant fast track processing, and granting an extended answer and comment period in a case where Complainants sought relief, including tariff revisions aimed at
addressing complex issues).

10 See, e.g., Motion for Leave to File Answer and Answer of the New York City Suppliers, Docket No. ER10-3043 at 5 (November 12, 2010).

11 See Motion to Intervene and for Extended Comment Deadline of Independent Power Producers
of New York, Inc., Docket No. ER10-3043 at 5 (October 1, 2010) (“IPPNY and other interested parties
should be afforded a reasonable amount of time to consult with experts and prepare thorough comments
for the Commission to consider, particularly since there are complex and important issues involved.”)

12 See Motion to Intervene of Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc., Docket No. ER13-405 (November 30, 2012).

New York Public Service Commission Order approving the Dunkirk term sheet on August 16,
2012 - i.e., nine months ago.13 On January 7, 2013, Complainant filed a seventy one page
protest in Docket No. ER13-405 that raised the same objections that are asserted in the
Complaint to supposed exercises of buyer-side market power involving existing resources.14 It is
hardly reasonable for Complainant to seek expedited Commission action now given that, even if
there were any merit to its substantive claims,15 the “need” for expedited action is solely
attributable to its own delay. Complainant’s request should be viewed with additional disfavor
because of its admitted failure to address its concerns in the NYISO stakeholder process.16
Finally, the Commission has been clear that fast track processing is to be employed only in very limited circumstances because “of the extraordinarily compressed time schedule that
would place a heavy burden on all parties to the proceeding” and the potential for over-taxing the
Commission’s limited resources.17 Given the circumstances in this case, Complainant should not
be permitted to impose these burdens on the Commission, the NYISO, or the numerous
stakeholders that have substantial interests in the outcome of this proceeding and are likely to
participate in it.

Although the Complaint clearly fails to meet the requirements of Rule 206(b)(11) or

related Commission precedents, the NYISO understands that it is ultimately for the Commission
to govern its own proceedings and to decide the timing of when it will consider the Complaint.

13 See Complaint at 13.

14 See Protest of Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc., (Docket No. ER13-405) (January 7, 2013).

15 The NYISO’s next answer in this proceeding will demonstrate that all of Complainant’s claims are without merit.

16 See Complaint at 37-38.

17 Complaint Procedures, Order No. 602, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,071 at 30,766 (1999).

III.CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above the NYISO respectfully requests that the Commission reject Complainant’s unjustified and defective request for fast-track processing.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ted J. Murphy

Counsel for the

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

cc:Travis Allen

Michael A. Bardee
Gregory Berson
Anna Cochrane
Jignasa Gadani
Morris Margolis
David Morenoff
Michael McLaughlin
Daniel Nowak

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day caused the foregoing document to be served on the
Complainant and upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the
Secretary in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Rule 2010 of the

Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 385.2010 (2012).
Dated at Washington, D.C. this 13th day of May 2013.

/s/ Catherine Karimi

Catherine Karimi

Sr. Professional Assistant

Hunton & Williams LLP

2200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Tel: (202) 955-1500
Fax: (202) 778-2201