Docket No. ER22-2152-000, et al.
I concur with approving the cost allocation proposal submitted by the New York Transmission Owners (NYTOs) and supported by the New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC).
Two key points underlie my support.
First, as I have stated on more than one occasion before, NYISO is a single-state ISO and, as such, it is expected that transmission planning in NYISO would be consistent with the public policies of the State of New York, as well as meeting the requirements of the Federal Power Act.[1]
Second, there is nothing in the record in this matter to indicate that any of the costs of the transmission projects that will be built to implement New York’s public policies under the terms described in this proposal will be forced on consumers in other states. As I have also said before, if the record showed costs for New York’s policies were being imposed on consumers in states that had not consented to such cost allocation, that would be a much different story and would quite likely result in unjust and unreasonable rates.[2] And claiming that such consumers were somehow “beneficiaries” of New York’s public policies, when out-of-state consumers had no say in electing the New York politicians adopting such policies, would not cure the fundamental unjustness and unreasonableness of such cost allocation.
To that last point, I want to emphasize that my support of this order is based on the facts and circumstances of this record, specifically, that this involves a single-state ISO, acting with the endorsement of the state PSC which itself describes the proposal as an “effective means of planning and paying for local transmission projects approved by the [NYPSC] to comply with the requirements of New York State’s”[3] legislation enacted by that state’s legislature to meet that state’s own public policy goals. While the order states that the allocation of costs of these upgrades on a load-share basis across the state is roughly commensurate with the benefits, this finding is only appropriate under these facts and circumstances. Any suggestion that this order can be read to permit shifting a state’s public policy costs to consumers in other states or to suggest that the consumers in other states benefit from those projects without the express agreement of those other states is incorrect and it is not the order I support here or would have supported here.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] See, e.g., N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc. 178 FERC ¶ 61,179 (2022) (Christie, Comm’r, concurring at P 2) (“The specific projects at issue in this proceeding are designed to implement the public policies of the State of New York, which are ultimately the responsibility of New York’s elected legislators. . . . NYISO is a single-state ISO that is attempting to act in accordance with the public policies of the state.” (footnote omitted)) (available at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/commissioner-christies-individual-concurrence-el22-2-regarding-nyto-rofr); N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 178 FERC ¶ 61,101 (2022) (Christie, Comm’r, concurring at PP 3, 5) (available at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/item-e-2-commissioner-mark-c-christie-concurrence-regarding-new-york-independent); see also N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 180 FERC ¶ 61,004 (2022) (Christie, Comm’r, concurring at P 2) (quoting N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 179 FERC ¶ 61,102 (2022) (Christie, Comm’r, concurring at P 3) (available at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/commissioner-christies-concurrence-nyiso-tariff-revisions-re-marginal-capacity) (further citations omitted)).
[2] See, e.g., N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 180 FERC ¶ 61,004 (Christie, Comm’r, concurring at P 2) (“Thus, there being no evidence in this record that citizens of other states will be made to pay for New York’s policy decisions through the potential impacts of NYISO’s proposed tariff revisions, I conclude that any costs will be confined to New York. Based on the particular set of facts in this record, I do not find that the NYISO proposal ‘as-applied’ results in rates that are ‘unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory or preferential’ under the FPA.”) (quoting N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 179 FERC ¶ 61,102 (Christie, Comm’r, concurring at P 3) (quoting N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 178 FERC ¶ 61,101 (Christie, Comm’r, concurring at PP 4-6)) (further citations omitted)); see also NSTAR Elec. Co., 179 FERC ¶ 61,200 (2022) (Christie, Comm’r, concurring at P 10) (“To reiterate, imposing the costs of a project driven by one state’s public policies onto another state that has not consented to such cost allocation would, in my view, presumably result in unjust and unreasonable rates.”) (available at https://www.ferc.gov/media/e-13-er22-1247-000); N.Y. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 174 FERC ¶ 61,110 (2021) (Christie, Comm’r, concurring at P 3) (“I also note that the NYISO is a single-state ISO and I have been able to locate no evidence in the record that the New York policies at issue in today’s order are causing cost-shifting onto consumers in other states. If consumers in other states were disadvantaged, I may well view this matter differently.”) (emphasis added) (available at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/item-e-2-commissioner-mark-c-christie-concurrence-regarding-new-york-state-public); cf. Commissioner Mark C. Christie, Fair RATES Act Statement on PJM Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) Revisions, Docket No. ER21-2582-000 at P 6 (Oct. 19, 2021) (“. . . I would have proposed that PJM formulate a replacement for the current MOPR based on three broad principles: (1) a state may designate specific or categorical resources as ‘public policy resources’ and such designated resources will be funded through a mechanism chosen by the state outside of the capacity market . . . and (3) non-sponsoring state consumers would not be forced to pay for another state’s designated public-policy resources.”) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis in the original and added) (available at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/commissioner-christies-fair-rates-act-statement-pjm-mopr).
[3] NYPSC Comments at 3.