October 24, 2013
Practice Groups:
Energy;
Transmission;
Projects &
Transactions
California Grid Operator Proposes Extending Rate
Incentives To Developers
By William M. Keyser and Molly Suda
On October 17, 2013, the California Independent System Operator (“CAISO”) released a
draft final proposal for revisions to its transmission planning process. The proposal reflects
comments received on a straw proposal issued on September 10, 2013 and is intended to
improve the transmission planning process for transmission developers that are not currently
Participating Transmission Owners (“PTOs”) and who do not currently own transmission
facilities operated by CAISO (“non-PTOs”). The draft proposal has three parts. First, CAISO
proposes to create a rate recovery mechanism that allows non-PTOs to recover their
transmission revenue requirement for transmission projects under construction so long as
the non-PTOs have received approval of their transmission rate incentives and revenue
requirements from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). This change
would allow project sponsors and investors to begin revenue recovery before the project
goes into service. Second, CAISO proposes to clarify that project sponsors with existing
transmission assets are only required to turn over to CAISO operational control of the project
they are selected to build in the CAISO planning process. Third, to mitigate costs incurred
by CAISO to perform and administer the competitive transmission solicitation process,
CAISO proposes to impose a project sponsor application deposit of $75,000, plus a true up
or refund based on CAISO’s actual administrative costs.
CAISO will hold a stakeholder web conference on October 29, 2013 to discuss the draft final
proposal and solicit final stakeholder comments. CAISO is also requesting written
stakeholder comments by November 12, 2013. CAISO’s proposal will be presented to the
CAISO Board of Governors at its December 18-19 meeting, with a projected filing date for
applicable tariff revisions in the early part of 2014.
Participation in the CAISO stakeholder process can be a powerful way for transmission
developers to shape the policies and procedures that will ultimately govern their transmission
project proposals to CAISO. Raising concerns and presenting alternatives during the
stakeholder process can be an important means of affecting proposals that will ultimately be
filed at FERC, where adjustments to the proposal may be more difficult to obtain. More
detail on each of CAISO’s proposals is provided below. K&L Gates LLP has substantial
experience with CAISO, FERC, and Regional Transmission Organization (“RTO”)
stakeholder processes, and in advising clients regarding competitive solicitation processes
for transmission projects.
Proposal 1: Permitting Revenue Recovery for Non-PTO Transmission Projects under Construction
To promote capital investment in reliable and economically efficient transmission
infrastructure, FERC established transmission rate incentives that include: (1) return on
equity adders, (2) recovery of prudently incurred costs associated with abandoned
transmission projects due to factors beyond the control of the constructing entity, (3) use of
hypothetical capital structures, (4) inclusion of construction work-in-progress (“CWIP”) in rate
California Grid Operator Proposes Extending Rate Incentives To
Developers
base, (5) accelerated depreciation, and (6) expensing pre-commercial operation costs.
Although most of these rate incentives are not included in the transmission revenue
requirement of the transmission owner until the new transmission facilities are operational
and, in the context of CAISO, turned over to CAISO control, inclusion of CWIP in rate base
and recovery of abandoned plant may be recovered prior to completion of the new
transmission project or after abandonment of the project. Inclusion of CWIP in rate base
allows investors to receive a return on their investment before the project is placed into
service, which eases the financial burden on the developer and increases the attractiveness
of investments in transmission projects. Recovery of abandoned plant reduces the ex ante
risk of investment in transmission projects because prudently incurred costs may still be
recovered even if the project is not completed.
The CAISO tariff contains provisions for PTOs to collect the transmission revenue
requirements and rate incentives that FERC has approved through transmission and
wheeling access charges. However, cost recovery is limited to entities that have become a
PTO and turned over operational control of their facilities to CAISO. This prevents nonPTOs from taking advantage of FERC-approved preconstruction rate incentives, which are
designed to ease the financial burden on development of large-scale transmission projects.
To address this concern, CAISO is considering tariff revisions to permit non-PTOs to recover
all FERC-approved costs, including CWIP and abandoned plant, so long as the non-PTOs
obtain approval for their transmission rate incentives and revenue requirement from FERC.
These revisions would provide transmission developers and investors with the valuable
option of recovering costs during the construction phase prior to the transmission project
being placed into service, thus easing the financial burden on non-PTO developers and
increasing the project’s attractiveness for investors.
Proposal 2: Clarifying Treatment of Non-PTO Approved Project Sponsors with Existing
Transmission Assets
Stakeholders have expressed concern that the CAISO tariff provisions requiring new PTOs
to turn over operational control of transmission projects are unclear and may potentially be
read to require transmission developers to turn over not just the particular transmission
project selected through the competitive solicitation process, but also all other existing
transmission assets. Noting that it was never the intent for new PTOs to turn over all other
existing transmission assets, CAISO proposes to make the changes necessary to clarify that
the transfer of control requirement is applicable only to the facilities that the new PTO was
designated to build in the CAISO competitive solicitation process, not all of the PTO’s
transmission facilities.
Proposal 3: Competitive Solicitation Process Application Deposit
CAISO states that administering the competitive solicitation process for transmission projects
requires a significant expenditure of costs and commitment of resources, including enlisting
outside consultants to support internal CAISO staff. CAISO expects the costs of
administering this process to increase as more and more projects are proposed through the
competitive solicitation process. Therefore, CAISO proposes to adopt a $75,000 application
deposit to cover these costs. If the amount required to pay actual costs is determined to be
greater than $75,000, then each project sponsor participating in the competitive solicitation
would be obligated to pay more to cover the actual costs, up to a cap of $150,000. However,
if the amount required to pay actual costs is determined to be less than $75,000, then each
2
California Grid Operator Proposes Extending Rate Incentives To
Developers
project sponsor would be refunded the unused balance of its deposit, with interest. The
deposit amount is based on the costs experienced by CAISO in recent competitive
solicitations. FERC has approved similar application deposits for the competitive solicitation
processes administered by other RTOs. Through the stakeholder process, CAISO will
develop tariff provisions to clarify the costs to which the deposit will apply and how it will
calculate when a project’s sponsor will receive a refund. CAISO will also provide a public
accounting of the actual costs incurred to which the deposit applies.
CAISO states the three proposals are intended to “further support competition in the ISO
transmission planning process.” By providing non-PTO developers with a mechanism to
recover pre-construction and abandonment costs, CAISO seeks to create more opportunity
for non-PTO transmission development. Non-PTOs will no longer need to wait until their
project is operational to begin cost recovery or to earn a return on their capital investment.
They will also have more certainty that FERC-approved abandonment costs can be
recovered. This should ease the financial burden on non-PTO developers and make such
projects more attractive for financial investors. By adopting a $75,000 application deposit,
CAISO is also signaling that it intends to invest significant resources in the review and
evaluation of transmission bid proposals and that only those developers that are serious
about participation should get involved in the process. CAISO believes that these changes
will advance its goal of a creating a competitive transmission planning process in California.
Authors:
William M. Keyser
william.keyser@klgates.com
+1.202.661.3863
Molly Suda
molly.suda@klgates.com
+1.202.778.9452
Anchorage Austin Beijing Berlin Boston Brisbane Brussels Charleston Charlotte Chicago Dallas Doha Dubai Fort Worth Frankfurt
Harrisburg Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Melbourne Miami Milan Moscow Newark New York Orange County Palo Alto Paris
Perth Pittsburgh Portland Raleigh Research Triangle Park San Diego San Francisco São Paulo Seattle Seoul Shanghai Singapore Spokane
Sydney Taipei Tokyo Warsaw Washington, D.C. Wilmington
K&L Gates practices out of 48 fully integrated offices located in the United States, Asia, Australia, Europe, the
Middle East and South America and represents leading global corporations, growth and middle-market companies,
capital markets participants and entrepreneurs in every major industry group as well as public sector entities,
educational institutions, philanthropic organizations and individuals. For more information about K&L Gates or its
locations, practices and registrations, visit www.klgates.com.
This publication is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be used or relied upon in
regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer.
©2013 K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.
3