{"document":{"slug":"filing-20260715-5116","title":"Answer of Southwest Power Pool Transmission Owner Group to L.M. Marlowe's 07/08/2026 Motion for Settlement Procedures","issued":"2026-07-15","accession":"20260715-5116","docket":"EL26-68-000","group":"SPP filings","filer":"Southwest Power Pool Transmission Owner Group","kind":"answer","file":"sources/originals/20260715-5116_01.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_Number=20260715-5116","sha256":"16863b2d463b307d5ca30ec91eb84f8368e981249274647f85005f8c08b8844c","pages":6,"tokens":1423,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":236,"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA \nBEFORE THE \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \n \n \n \n) \nSouthwest Power Pool, Inc. \n \n) \nDocket No. EL26-68 \n \n \n \n \n) \n \n No. RM26-4 \n \n \n) \nANSWER OF THE  \nSOUTHWEST POWER POOL TRANSMISSION OWNER GROUP \nPursuant to Rule 213 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Rules and \nRegulations,1 American Electric Power Service Corporation, as agent for Public Service Company \nof Oklahoma and Southwestern Electric Power Company, the Evergy Companies, Oklahoma Gas \nand Electric Company, and Xcel Energy Services Inc. on behalf of Southwestern Public Service \nCompany (collectively, the SPP TO Group) submit the following answer to the July 8, 2026 \nMotion of L.M. Marlowe for the Establishment of Settlement Procedures and Convening of a \nSettlement Conference, or, in the Alternative, for the Appointment of a Settlement Judge (Motion).  \nThe Commission should deny the Motion because it is premature and would profoundly disrupt \nthe Commission’s well-reasoned decision to address the challenge of large load additions on a \nregional basis through show-cause orders directed to Southwest Power Pool, Inc. and its \nTransmission Owners2 and in parallel proceedings simultaneously directed at other regions \n(collectively, Show Cause Orders).3 \n \n1 18 C.F.R. § 385.213. \n2 Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,213 (2026) (SPP Show Cause Order). \n3 See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2026); N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, \nInc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2026); Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 \n(2026)."},{"page":2,"startToken":236,"endToken":541,"text":"2 \nThe Motion is premature, and Movant’s attempts to preempt arguments to the contrary fail.  \nMovant cites several items involving “Federal action on the reliability of large-load integration” \nas the basis for its position that settlement procedures are necessary, claiming that “[a] proceeding \naddressing an active and recurring reliability emergency—one already the subject of the highest \ntier of reliability alert and of federal emergency orders—is not one in which movement toward \nresolution can reasonably be characterized as premature.”4  Among those federal actions, Movant \ncites the Show Cause Orders.  But Movant’s request for a nationwide settlement proceeding in lieu \nof regional Show Cause Order proceedings is not “movement toward resolution.”5  Rather, it is a \nrejection of the Commission’s pointed choice to address large load issues on a regional basis, rather \nthan impose a rigid nationwide rule, and to allow regional stakeholders the opportunity to develop \nconsensus solutions through a transparent stakeholder process.6  A nationwide settlement \nproceeding would actively distract from resolution of the issues, and, as discussed below, would \nbe both less transparent and substantially more burdensome on stakeholders than regional \nproceedings.  The Commission should deny the Motion and should not consider alternatives to the \nnascent Show Cause Order proceedings at this time. \nThere is also no basis to grant the Motion.  The Commission has discretion whether to \nestablish settlement procedures, hold a settlement conference, or appoint a settlement judge.  The \nCommission “may convene a conference of the participants in a proceeding at any time for any \npurpose related to the conduct or disposition of the proceeding,” 7 but nothing in the Commission’s \nrules require that action, especially where settlement procedures would be counterproductive.  \n \n4 Motion at 2.   \n5 Id. \n6 See, e.g., SPP Show Cause Order at P 33. \n7 18 C.F.R. § 385.601(a) (emphasis added)."},{"page":3,"startToken":541,"endToken":855,"text":"3 \nLikewise, Rule 603 states that the Commission may order the Chief Administrative Law Judge to \nappoint a settlement judge, but is not obligated to do so.8   \nMovant fails to mention the material burdens that a nationwide settlement proceeding \nwould present.  Hundreds of parties have submitted comments in response to the ANOPR, the \noverwhelming majority of whom are located outside of Washington, D.C.  Movant’s request would \nrequire those parties to undertake the costly process of hiring local counsel to participate in \nsettlement proceedings at the Commission.9  It would also be impracticable, if not impossible, to \neffectively manage settlement proceedings involving the hundreds of parties that participated in \nthe ANOPR proceedings.  Besides presenting physical difficulties, it would be extremely time \nconsuming to manage confidentiality requirements, information presentations, roll-taking, etc.  \nMovant’s proposal almost certainly would create a procedural headache and would not address the \nregion-specific concerns that are the focal point of these proceedings.   \nMovant also claims that settlement here “would allow the participants—the RTO/ISOs, \ntransmission owners, large-load and generation interests, State representatives, ratepayer \nadvocates, and intervenors such as Movant—to work toward mutually acceptable reliability, \nobservability, and cost-allocation methodologies.”10  However, Movant ignores that the Show \nCause Orders grant Transmission Owners and the relevant RTO/ISO the opportunity to seek a 90-\nday abeyance to provide time to “work through the stakeholder processes to develop FPA section \n205 filings to revise the Tariff to address the issues raised in this order.”11  Thus, the Show Cause \n \n8 Id. § 385.603(d). \n9 See 18 C.F.R. § 385.601(b)(3) (“If any party fails to attend the conference such failure will \nconstitute a waiver of all objections to any order or ruling arising out of, or any agreement reached \nat, the conference.”). \n10 Motion at 2. \n11E.g., Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,213, at P 33."},{"page":4,"startToken":855,"endToken":1163,"text":"4 \nOrders already provide for the exact cooperation Movant claims to seek, without the extra \nadministrative burden.   \nFinally, the Movant’s particular interest in the proposed settlement procedures appears to \nbe based in some vague claim to intellectual property rights.12  As Movant states, “Movant is the \nauthor and rights-holder of a framework responsive to these questions, and seeks its \nconsideration.”13  That is no basis for Movant to request the mandatory participation of the entire \nutility industry in her self-centered, proposed settlement proceeding.  Every Transmission Owner \nand System Operator has its own preferred “framework responsive to these questions.”  There will \nbe plenty of regional stakeholder proceedings for the Movant to present her views without \nimposing substantial direct costs and administrative burdens on others.  The Movant alleges no \ncognizable, concrete, or particularized injury from the Commission’s interlocutory Show Cause \nOrders that distinguishes the Movant from any other person or entity with a policy preference.  By \ncontrast, the public utilities that the Commission has actually directed to respond to the Show \nCause Orders are responsible for developing and implementing solutions to the directives in the \nShow Cause Orders. \nFor the reasons set forth above, the SPP TO Group respectfully requests the Commission \ndeny the Motion. \n \n12 See Motion at 1; accord Supplemental Technical Comment and Reservation of Rights of L.M. \nMarlowe at 1-2 (July 8, 2026) (“Commenter is an independent author and developer of a published, \ntimestamped analytical framework addressing deterministic reliability invariants, real-time \nobservability of computational load behavior, dependency mapping, and the allocation of \nreliability and capacity burdens created by large computational loads. Commenter’s published \nwork — including the Architecture of Dependency and Autonomy™, the MARLOWE™ \nInvariant-Based Diagnostic Framework, Intent-Aware Telemetry™, Continuous Invariant \nValidation™, Execution Sovereignty™, and the associated Ghost Load™ dependency analysis — \nbears directly on the reliability and cost-causation questions presented in these dockets.”). \n13 Motion at 2."},{"page":5,"startToken":1163,"endToken":1344,"text":"5 \n \n \n \nJohn Crespo \nDeputy General Counsel \nAmerican Electric Power Service Corporation \n1 Riverside Plaza \nColumbus, OH 43215 \n(614) 205-2678 \njccrespo@aep.com \nOn behalf of American Electric Power Service \nCorporation \nDenise Buffington \nSenior Director Federal Regulatory Affairs  \nEvergy, Inc. \n1200 Main Street \nKansas City, MO 64105 \n(816) 556-2683 \ndenise.buffington@evergy.com \nOn behalf of the Evergy Companies \nChase Snodgrass \nSenior Regulatory Attorney \nOGE Energy Corp. \n321 N. Harvey Ave. \nOklahoma City, OK 73101 \n(405) 553-3129 \nsnodgrcc@oge.com \nOn behalf of Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company \nRespectfully submitted, \n \n/s/ John Lee Shepherd, Jr. \nJohn Lee Shepherd, Jr. \nBlake Grow \nHunton Andrews Kurth LLP \n2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW \nWashington, DC 20037 \n(202) 419-2135 \n(202) 955-1991 \njshepherd@hunton.com \nbgrow@hunton.com \nCounsel for American Electric Power Service  \nCorporation, the Evergy Companies,  \nOklahoma Gas and Electric Company, and  \nSouthwestern Public Service Company \n \nTimothy T. Mastrogiacomo \nVice President, Federal Regulatory, Legal, and Policy \nXcel Energy Services Inc. \n701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Ste. 250 \nWashington, DC 20006 \n(202) 661-4481 \ntim.t.mastrogiacomo@xcelenergy.com \nOn behalf of Southwestern Public Service Company \nJuly 15, 2026"},{"page":6,"startToken":1344,"endToken":1423,"text":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \nI hereby certify that I have on this day caused to be served a copy of the foregoing \ncomments upon all parties on the service list in these proceedings in accordance with the \nrequirements of Rule 2010 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. \n§ 385.2010 (2025). \n/s/ Blake Grow \n \nBlake Grow \nHunton Andrews Kurth LLP \n2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW \nWashington, DC 20037 \n(202) 955-1991 \nbgrow@hunton.com \nJuly 15, 2026"}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":6,"endAt":0,"startToken":0,"endToken":1344},{"p":6,"at":0,"title":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE","method":"printed heading","endPage":6,"endAt":466,"startToken":1344,"endToken":1423}]}