Miso Transmission Owner Agreement

LSP`s latest complaint concerns FERC`s decision, treat the combined retail distribution sectors of the Entergy Corp. electrical company as a domestic market (or “fingerprint” in the language of Order No. 1000-A, above, 139 FERC – 61132 on P 429) to determine whether transmission projects proposed in the Entergy market should be considered local and not regional as regional , while Entergy is present in Texas. , Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi and does so by separate operating companies in each state. Order No. 1000 eliminated federal prerogatives only for regional projects, not for local projects, as we know, but the vast area covered by Entergy`s many operating companies hardly corresponds to the usual understanding of “local.” But “local” does not need to keep its usual understanding when used to determine the service area of a huge electrical transmission company. It is a relative term; New York is a huge city, but as a matter of size is “local” relative to the state of New York, or in the northeast. Entergy`s retail areas can be described as “local” for another reason: the various operating companies actually work as one and have been active for more than fifty years. See Louisiana Public Service Commission v. FERC, 522 F.3d 378, 383 (D.C.Cir.2008).

The Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) was established in 1999 and in 2001 achieved the status of a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO). MISO began operating in the energy market in 2005. In 2008, MISO was granted permission to operate an ancillary services contract and combined its 24 separate clearing surfaces into a single clearing area. Provides input and policy guidance on all aspects of miso wholesale markets, including transportation, energy, capacity, financial transmission, credit and ancillary services. The MISO transport operators point out to us that the granting of first refusal rights was not intended to reduce competition, but to recognize that “competition has not been taken into account in the development of transport services”, and that the objective of the section in question was therefore simply to allow miSO to require transport operators to build the necessary facilities in their watersheds. But it doesn`t make sense. Had there been no intention or expectation of competition, no prerogative of refusal would have been required. A market that can only be supported by a company because the conditions of supply and demand no longer leave room – the so-called natural monopoly – does not need a prerogative. Such a right implies the possibility of entering (if not why create such a right?) – that is, space for an additional business or company, but the law allows the existing company to prohibit itself from entering the market.

About Jenny Smith

has written 387 post in this blog.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Jenny Smith