On January 21, 2022, FERC accepted revisions to the Southeast Power Exchange (“SEEM”) agreement pursuant to commitments made by SEEM members in response to two letters of shortcomings that it issued before the entry into force of the SEEM agreement as of right.
The initial filing of the SEEM Agreement set out the framework for a new voluntary electronic trading platform designed to facilitate two-way trade in the Southeast and market access of currently unused transmission capacity. On October 21, 2021, the SEEM Agreement became effective as of right due to FERC’s inaction (See October 21, 2021 edition of WER). Each SEEM member who was also a transmission provider then filed tariff revisions to offer zero-charge transmission service to support SEEM transactions, which FERC agreed to in an order dated November 8, 2021. The revisions proposals, which implement commitments made before the SEEM Agreement entered into force, focused primarily on improving the transparency of transactional data, but also clarified the standard of review applicable to various provisions of the Agreement. Comments filed on the revisions questioned whether the revisions adequately addressed stakeholder concerns about market power, governance, non-discriminatory access, the lack of an independent market monitor, and consumer impacts.
In its order, FERC noted that the concerns raised in the comments relate almost entirely to the filed tariff already in effect and not the proposed revisions. FERC went on to explain that, while it did not issue an order accepting the SEEM Agreement, it was the rate on file and the correctness and reasonableness of the existing provisions of the SEEM Agreement to which the members did not propose revisions were therefore beyond the scope of the proceedings. FERC determined that the proposed revisions were fair and reasonable and accepted them for filing.
Chairman Glick wrote separately to reiterate his view that the application of the sierra mobile the presumption of public interest (which presents a higher bar to voiding a contract under FERC precedent) to any provision of the SEEM Agreement was contrary to FERC precedent. Commissioner Clements also wrote separately to explain her view that the amendments failed to address the underlying fundamental flaws of the SEEM deal and to clarify that her approval does not indicate her approval of the market’s construction. broader, which Commissioner Clements says violates the core of Order No. 888 requirements by imposing unduly discriminatory barriers to access to a new transportation product offered by SEEM members.
A copy of the order is available here.
Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP published this content on February 10, 2022 and is solely responsible for the information contained therein. Distributed by Public, unedited and unmodified, on February 10, 2022 05:18:04 UTC.