Docket No. ER24-1614-000
I dissent to the decision in today’s order conditionally accepting and suspending the RTO Adder for a nominal period and initiating a hearing related to the same. As I previously have made clear:
[T]he Order conditionally grants . . . a 50-basis point RTO participation adder on top of the existing . . . ROE, which, by definition, already represents the market cost of equity capital. So the adder is, by definition, a subsidy, as any ROE adder is — more “FERC candy” taken directly from consumers and redistributed to transmission owners.
In April 2021 two of my colleagues, including [then-Chairman Glick], joined me in voting to limit the RTO participation adder — the exact type granted herein — to three years after joining. [Now, over three years later], we have yet to take a final vote to implement that limit. As long as we do not, consumers will continue to pay these adders at a time when consumers are already facing rapidly rising monthly power bills.[1]
As I have stressed in multiple separate statements since, there has been no movement by the Commission to address the RTO Adder incentive or the other incentives routinely awarded by this Commission.[2] For some time I have emphasized that “revisiting all these incentives is imperative at a time of rapidly rising customer power bills.”[3]
Most recently, I have dissented to orders awarding incentives noting that “it is far past time for me to begin dissenting from these orders.”[4] I drew this conclusion after noting:
[D]espite the appearance of action by the Commission to address unfair and excessive transmission costs to consumers from incentives and other Commission policies, the record of the past three years shows nothing has been accomplished to reform these incentives. Indeed, this order is another graphic example of why I have repeatedly argued that the Commission needs to revisit the array of incentives offered to transmission developers, including the Abandoned Plant Incentive . . . as well as the [Construction Work in Progress (CWIP)] Incentive, Hypothetical Capital Structure Incentive, and the RTO participation adder.[5]
So too here. I dissent. As I have written, “[T]he RTO participation adder, which increases the transmission owner’s ROE above the market cost of equity capital, is an involuntary gift from consumers.”[6]
Moreover, I note the argument made by the New York State Public Service Commission (NYSPSC) against the award of the RTO Adder and point out the NYSPSC neither asked that the RTO Adder be conditionally accepted nor set for hearing.[7] It requested that it be denied.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.
[1]See, e.g., Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 181 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2022), (Christie, Comm’r, concurring at PP 1-2) (citing Electric Transmission Incentives Policy Under Section 219 of the Federal Power Act, Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 175 FERC ¶ 61,035 (2021)) (emphasis added) (available at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/commissioner-christies-concurrence-urging-action-re-rto-participation-adder-docket).
[2] See, e.g., Viridon New England LLC, 186 FERC ¶ 61,205 (2024) (Christie, Comm’r, concurring at PP 2-5).
[3] Id. P 5.
[4] Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 187 FERC ¶ 61,030 (2024) (Christie, Comm’r, dissenting at P 5) (Christie Exelon Dissent) (available at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/commissioner-christies-dissent-award-incentives-exelon-er24-1313). See Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 187 FERC ¶ 61,072 (2024) (Christie, Comm’r, dissenting at P 6) (Christie ALLETE Dissent) (available at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/commissioner-christies-dissent-award-incentives-allete-er24-1473) (“It is far past time for me to dissent from these orders.”).
[5] Christie Exelon Dissent at P 5 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added). See Christie ALLETE Dissent at P 6.
[6] Christie Exelon Dissent at P 7 (footnote omitted); Christie ALLETE Dissent at P 8 (footnote omitted).
[7] I also note that the NYSPSC argues that the requested ROE must be set for hearing, including noting that in addition to the RTO Adder, Orange and Rockland may request future additional incentive ratemaking treatment. Order at P 42. The requested ROE has been set for hearing in today’s order. I note that no other request for incentives appear to be before the Commission at this time.