Opinion ID: 187241
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Proposed/Planned Distinction

Text: We next address the petitioners' contention that FERC's reliance on the RECB Task Force's distinction between planned projects and proposed projects was arbitrary in several respects. We find none of their arguments persuasive. The petitioners first argue it was arbitrary to create the Excluded Projects List based on [an] individual transmission owner's self-identified `Planned' and `Proposed' transmission projects, noting in particular that some proposed projects have similar (or even earlier) in-service dates than some that are planned. ATC Br. 14. As [t]he most compelling evidence of the arbitrary nature of the Planned and Proposed designations, the petitioners cite the fact that the Midwest ISO included on the Excluded Projects List not just all of the Planned projects in Appendix A, but 36 of the Proposed projects. Id. On the first point, FERC recognized that MISO reasonably decided to focus not on the in-service date but on the stage of a project's planning as of October 7, 2005, in keeping with its going forward rationale. As for the second, that MISO treated some projects as planned notwithstanding the owners' proposed designation suggests that, contrary to the petitioners' assertion, MISO did not blindly accept the owners' own characterization. The petitioners also challenge FERC's determination that MISO changed the 36 projects' designations from proposed to planned because of those projects' advanced planning stage. The petitioners assert that this explanation for the changes first appears in FERC's February 3, 2006 Tariff Order, pointing out that only after that Order issued did MISO insert the rationale into its revised Attachment FF. See FERC Tariff Ord. at 61,361 (noting proposed projects that were sufficiently advanced in the planning process... were viewed by the Midwest ISO as being, for practical purposes, `planned'); Revised Attachment FF ¶ III(A)(2)(b) (issued April 4, 2006) (The cost allocation provisions of this Attachment FF shall not be applicable to transmission projects identified in Attachment FF-1, which is based on the list of projects designated as Planned Projects in [MTEP 05] and some additions of proposed projects that the Transmission Provider has determined to [be] in the advanced stages of planning.  (underlining of revised language in original)). The record contains evidence, however, that at an August 19, 2005 meeting (before the October 7, 2005 Cost Allocation Policy Letter designating the 36 projects as proposed), the [MISO] stakeholders voted to use the list of projects that were identified as `planned' in MTEP 2005 or that were identified as `proposed' but were so far along that they really should be identified as `planned.'  Blake Aff. 13 (emphasis added). Further, the petitioners point to no specific project they claim was misdesignated. Nor did they do so before the tariff revision was filed on October 7, 2005notwithstanding MISO, before its revised filing, offered any Transmission Owner that wanted the opportunity to argue that one or more of its projects that were represented as Planned Projects in the MTEP 05 should be considered more tentative in nature and thus be re-categorized as Proposed projects (subject to cost sharing as they are determined going forward in the regional planning process to be necessary or Planned projects). Cost Allocation Policy Letter 13. [12] The petitioners next argue that FERC failed to articulate a reasoned explanation based on substantial evidence in the record in order to treat some regionally beneficial projects in development differently from other regionally beneficial projects in development. ATC Br. 17-18. As we have already concluded, however, FERC provided an adequate rationale. The Commission explained that MISO reasonably adopted the planned/proposed distinction to provide a going forward cost sharing system which reasonably limits the cost sharing to those upgrades planned after the tariff revision was proposed and pursuant to its terms. Finally, the petitioners contend the planned/proposed distinction is arbitrary because it has the perverse effect of penalizing those transmission owners who engaged in the very proactive planning that Congress and the Commission have established as a high priority for national energy policy, while at the same time rewarding those who may have been less diligent in their planning efforts. ATC Br. 25-26. [13] As FERC noted, however, ATC will benefit significantly from the cost sharing policy in the future, FERC Reh'g Ord. ¶ 98, and, as we next explain, it is not unfair to require ATC to shoulder the costs of projects which were planned before any cost sharing policy was in effect.