Commissioner Richard Glick Statement
July 18, 2019
Docket No. EL18-140-001
Order Item: E-16
I dissented from the underlying order in this proceeding “because I do not believe that the ITC Companies are sufficiently independent to justify an ROE adder.” 1
Although I agreed with the Commission that the ITC Companies’ then-existing ROE adder was unjust and unreasonable, I disagreed with the decision to nevertheless award the ITC Companies an elevated ROE.
Only the ITC Companies sought rehearing. Today’s order denies their rehearing request, finding primarily that the Commission did not err in concluding that the then-existing ROE adder was unjust and unreasonable. I support the Commission’s conclusion in that regard and, therefore, join today’s order except insofar as it concludes that a 25-basis-point ROE adder is just and reasonable. 2
For the reasons given in my dissent from the underlying order, 3
I do not believe that a 25-basis-point adder is just and reasonable here and would instead eliminate the ITC Companies’ ROE adder altogether.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.
- 11 Consumers Energy Co. v. Int’l Transmission Co., 165 FERC ¶ 61,021 (2018) (October Order) (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting at P 1).
- 22 Specifically, I dissent from P 22 of today’s order. See Consumers Energy Co. v. Int’l Transmission Co., 168 FERC ¶ 61,035 (2019).
- 33 October Order, 165 FERC ¶ 61,021 (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting at PP 4-7).