UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ) ) ) ) MOTION TO INTERVENE AND INITIAL COMMENTS OF THE PSEG COMPANIES

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Electronic Tariff Filings Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Docket No. RM MOTION TO INTERVENE AND INITIAL COMMENTS OF THE PSEG COMPANIES Pursuant to the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NOPR issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( Commission in this docket on April 17, 2008, 1 Public Service Electric and Gas Company and PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC ( the PSEG Companies hereby file their initial comments in the captioned proceeding concerning the Commission s proposals for electronic tariff filings. In support, the PSEG Companies respectfully state as follows: I. IDENTITY OF THE PSEG COMPANIES The PSEG Companies are each wholly owned, direct or indirect subsidiaries of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated ( PSEG with principal and executive offices located in Newark, New Jersey. PSEG is an exempt public utility holding company engaged in, among other things, the generation of electricity, and the transmission, distribution and sale of electricity and natural gas through its subsidiaries. 1 Electronic Tariff Filings, Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 Fed. Reg (April 29, 2008, 123 FERC 61,045 (2008 ( E-Tariff NOPR. 1

2 PSE&G is a public utility company organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey. PSE&G is presently engaged in, among other things, the transmission and distribution of electricity and the distribution of natural gas in New Jersey. PSE&G owns transmission facilities in PJM and files tariffs, rates and contracts with the Commission. PSEG ER&T sells power and certain ancillary services at market-based rates. PSEG ER&T markets the capacity and production of PSEG Nuclear s and PSEG Fossil s generating stations, manages the commodity price risks and market risks related to generation, and provides gas supply services. PSEG ER&T is engaged in extensive assetbased energy trading operations throughout the Northeast and files tariffs, rates and contracts with the Commission. II. COMMUNICATIONS The PSEG Companies request that all pleadings, correspondence and other communications concerning this docket be directed to the following persons: Jodi L. Moskowitz General Regulatory Counsel Operations & Compliance 80 Park Plaza, T5G ( ( (facsimile Jodi.Moskowitz@.pseg.com As to the PSEG Companies: Alexander C. Stern Assistant General Regulatory Counsel 80 Park Plaza, T5G ( ( (facsimile Alexander.Stern@pseg.com 2

3 Tamara L. Linde Vice President Regulatory 80 Park Plaza, T5G ( ( (facsimile As to Public Service Electric and Gas Company: Paul D. Napoli Director Transmission Business Strategy Public Service Electric and Gas Company80 Park Plaza, T13 ( As to PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC: Marjorie R. Philips Managing Director Market Development PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC 80 Park Plaza, T19 ( III. COMMENTS The PSEG Companies fully support the comments filed by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI and will not attempt to replicate those here. Rather, the PSEG Companies wish to emphasize two significant issues raised in the EEI comments. The first issue concerns the benefits associated with enhancing the current efiling system as opposed to moving forward with the significantly more complicated and costly approach proposed in the E-Tariff NOPR. In the event that the Commission chooses to move forward with the E-Tariff NOPR as presently proposed, the second issue concerns the importance of clarifying that: (1 during the initial baseline implementation of electronic tariff filing, only open access transmission tariffs (OATTs need to be filed; (2 after implementation of electronic tariff filing, new tariffs and agreements will be filed using the new standards; and (3 existing agreements need to be filed using the new process only when they are revised. 3

4 A. Allowing Companies to e-file Tariffs, Schedules and Agreements in Standard Formats Will Accomplish the Same Benefits at Significantly Less Cost and Burden The PSEG Companies fully support the Commission s efforts to develop an efiling system specifically for tariffs, rate schedules and agreements. Without question, the current efiling and elibrary systems have assisted both the regulated community and the public by providing a simple and easy to use system for accessing information filed with the Commission. A critical element of this system has been the ability of public utilities and others to efile tariffs, rate schedules, agreements, pleadings and comments using standard formats such as Word, Adobe Acrobat, Excel and graphic files. The PSEG Companies agree with EEI that this simpler approach should be carried over into the e-tariff context. The PSEG Companies are aware that EEI has been advocating this position since the 2004 inception of this rulemaking process. What remains unclear is whether this position has been accorded enough dialogue and discussion. In reviewing the NOPR, it appears that concerns expressed in 2005 that the Commission software would not integrate well with existing tariff management systems led to seeking assistance from the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB which, in turn, led to the development of the one-size-fits-all extensible markup language ( XML schema. However, what is less apparent is whether enough consideration was given to enhancing the existing efiling system. Although as the E-Tariff NOPR indicates, tariff filings occur in many different dockets over time, it is not clear that this fact in and of itself supports the conclusion that the current elibrary and efiling system, perhaps with enhancements, is not well suited 4

5 to the processing of tariff and tariff related filings. 2 To the contrary, the efiling system today receives tariff filings and is likely fully capable of being refined in a way that will achieve the broader availability of information at significantly less cost and burden compared to what is proposed in the E-Tariff NOPR. Accordingly, the PSEG Companies join EEI in renewing its request that its simpler, significantly less costly, efiling approach be adopted. B. Should the Commission Move Forward With the E-Tariff NOPR, the PSEG Companies Strongly Urge the Commission to Clarify That Paragraph 12 of the NOPR Reflects the Documents to be Included in the Initial Baseline Electronic Filings. As EEI notes in its comments, paragraph 12 of the E-Tariff NOPR clearly indicates that: (1 only OATTs will need to be filed during the initial baseline implementation of electronic tariff filing; (2 after implementation of electronic tariff filing, all new tariffs and agreements must be filed using the standards; and (3 existing agreements would only have to be filed when they are revised. However, paragraph 59 of the NOPR, refers to the 2005 Notice, 3 which contemplated electric utility baseline filings to include not only OATTs, but also power sales tariffs available to any customer and market-based rate tariffs. The PSEG Companies agree with EEI s request that the Commission clarify that OATT s will have to be included in the initial baseline and that all other tariffs, rate schedules and service agreements need not be filed using the new electronic filing process unless and until such documents are subsequently initially filed or amended. 2 E-Tariff NOPR at para Electronic Tariff Filings, Notice of Additional Proposals and Procedures, 70 Fed. Reg (July 15, 2005, FERC Stats. & Regs., Proposed Regulations 35,551 (2005, 112 FERC 61,043 ( 2005 Notice. 5

6 The PSEG Companies have a significant number of older power sales contracts that are only maintained in paper format or scanned into read-only formats that do not readily lend themselves to modification. These older contracts include interconnection agreements that are very rarely modified. Additionally, the PSEG Companies have a significant number of other power sales contracts that although in electronic format, would be extremely burdensome to convert into a new software format, particularly when there is no intention to amend or revise these agreements. Without this clarification, many contracts, tariffs and agreements will need to be re-typed and modified to fit the e-tariff framework. Moreover, any change in the form of an agreement may constitute grounds to reopen a contract, which is not desirable for either party and could potentially put all current agreements at risk, including without limitation creating the risk of litigation over how the agreement is modified to fit the e- Tariff framework. Additionally, the labor required to re-type all the tariffs, contracts and agreements will substantially increase the cost of complying with this requirement. The PSEG Companies believe that paragraph 12 provides the correct interpretation of the Commission s intent and relieves a significant burden and cost for the utilities. The PSEG Companies thus request clarification that the initial baseline filing is limited to OATTs as expressed in paragraph 12 of the E-Tariff NOPR. 6

7 V. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons, the PSEG Companies respectfully request that the Commission consider these comments and issue a subsequent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that incorporates the recommendations herein. Respectfully submitted, Public Service Electric and Gas Company PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC By: Alexander C. Stern Alexander C. Stern Assistant General Regulatory Counsel 80 Park Plaza T5G Newark, New Jersey ( Alexander.Stern@pseg.com Jodi L. Moskowitz General Regulatory Counsel Operations & Compliance 80 Park Plaza T5G Newark, New Jersey ( jodi.moskowitz@pseg.com Dated: May 29, 2008 Newark, New Jersey 7