Docket Nos. ER22-914-000, ER22-914-001
I support today’s order based on the identification of the need for and design of SPP’s proposed Uncertainty Reserve product. I write separately, however, to note my difficulty in understanding how the time horizon for which a particular reserve product applies could not affect rates, terms and conditions such that it fails to merit inclusion in SPP’s tariff under the Commission’s “rule of reason” policy.[1] Recognizing it would be a departure from precedent given that SPP’s tariff does not specify the response times for many of its existing market products (e.g., Ramp Capability, Regulation, Spinning Reserves), I note my interest in pursuing this question outside of this specific proceeding.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] See Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 169 FERC ¶ 61,221, at P 67 (2019) (“[D]ecisions as to whether an item should be included in a tariff or in a business practice manual are guided by the Commission’s rule of reason policy, under which provisions that ‘significantly affect rates, terms, and conditions’ of service, are readily susceptible of specification, and are not generally understood in a contractual agreement must be included in a tariff.”).