Many people have asked how they can support Boundless Energy NE in its appeal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) asking that the NYISO be instructed to follow its OATT and consider all alternatives to meet New York’s electrical capability needs driven by Public Policy.
Rather than stating its “need” in terms of the system capabilities and capacities required to serve the public, the New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC) delivered a detailed technical specification, reducing the role of NYISO to that of construction manager, rather than fulfilling its mandate to select the least cost and most efficient alternative from among the broad array of transmission, generation and non-wires alternatives. The PSC chosen project was based on bad conclusions and erroneous assumptions. It is not the least cost. It is not the least disruptive. It is not the best alternative to meet community concerns. It does not have the least environmental impact. It is just wrong.
You have until 5:00 p.m. on June 30, 2016 to provide your comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on the pending request Boundless filed for an order requiring the New York ISO (NYISO) to follow its rules in conducting a competition for solutions to New York's identified transmission upgrade needs. Boundless and other competitive transmission developers filed a complaint seeking this FERC directive because the NYISO chose to defer entirely to New York regulators in deciding how to address New York's transmission needs, rather than follow the competitive rules that FERC required so that consumers can receive the full benefit of competition. We expect that the NYISO will defend its decision to defer to the New York regulators rather than follow the FERC-required rules. A new RFP under FERC rules could produce solutions that the New York regulators might not support.
You can make your position known. The FERC has established rules for all those interested in expressing their views on matters before the FERC to do so in writing, either electronically (which the FERC encourages) or by paper or CD/DVD media submission. You do not need a lawyer, but may wish to consult your own legal counsel for advice on any such submission. At a minimum, you should review the FERC rules. Of note from those rules as they are currently in effect:
To file comments electronically, signers and submitters have to be e-registered with the FERC and comply with basic e-filing requirements.
Paper & CD/DVD submissions (original + 2 copies) can be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary and Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426 and you should review and follow FERC’s submission guidelines.
If you wish to be a party to the proceeding in which the FERC considered the pending request, in addition to just filing comments, you must follow the FERC rules for filing and intervention, which you can find at doc-less intervention process.
You must follow FERC’s requirements to serve or provide copies of any materials you submit to FERC. The service list can be accessed here.
If you are filing more than just comments for FERC’s consideration, other requirements could apply.
FERC Docket - This link takes you to a portion of FERC's e-Library that is dedicated to our case.
Our FERC Filing - Our initial complaint filed and accepted by FERC on 6/10/2016 (Docket #16-84-000); FERC set a deadline of 6/30/2016 for all comments to be filed.
PSC Order - Order issued by the NY Public Service Commission on 12/17/2015. We requested a rehearing and filed an appeal with the NY State courts. This document restricted the NY ISO's RFP, which directly conflicted with their FERC-approved tariff.
NYISO Solicitation - This is the RFP that the NY ISO released on 2/29/2016. This RFP was restricted by the PSC, and did not allow all transmission solutions to be considered.