EL26-68-000 · 2026-07-15 · Southwest Power Pool Transmission Owner Group

Answer of Southwest Power Pool Transmission Owner Group to L.M. Marlowe's 07/08/2026 Motion for Settlement Procedures

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
BEFORE THE 
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
 
 
 
) 
Southwest Power Pool, Inc. 
 
) 
Docket No. EL26-68 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 No. RM26-4 
 
 
) 
ANSWER OF THE  
SOUTHWEST POWER POOL TRANSMISSION OWNER GROUP 
Pursuant to Rule 213 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Rules and 
Regulations,1 American Electric Power Service Corporation, as agent for Public Service Company 
of Oklahoma and Southwestern Electric Power Company, the Evergy Companies, Oklahoma Gas 
and Electric Company, and Xcel Energy Services Inc. on behalf of Southwestern Public Service 
Company (collectively, the SPP TO Group) submit the following answer to the July 8, 2026 
Motion of L.M. Marlowe for the Establishment of Settlement Procedures and Convening of a 
Settlement Conference, or, in the Alternative, for the Appointment of a Settlement Judge (Motion).  
The Commission should deny the Motion because it is premature and would profoundly disrupt 
the Commission’s well-reasoned decision to address the challenge of large load additions on a 
regional basis through show-cause orders directed to Southwest Power Pool, Inc. and its 
Transmission Owners2 and in parallel proceedings simultaneously directed at other regions 
(collectively, Show Cause Orders).3 
 
1 18 C.F.R. § 385.213. 
2 Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,213 (2026) (SPP Show Cause Order). 
3 See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2026); N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, 
Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2026); Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 
(2026).

2 
The Motion is premature, and Movant’s attempts to preempt arguments to the contrary fail.  
Movant cites several items involving “Federal action on the reliability of large-load integration” 
as the basis for its position that settlement procedures are necessary, claiming that “[a] proceeding 
addressing an active and recurring reliability emergency—one already the subject of the highest 
tier of reliability alert and of federal emergency orders—is not one in which movement toward 
resolution can reasonably be characterized as premature.”4  Among those federal actions, Movant 
cites the Show Cause Orders.  But Movant’s request for a nationwide settlement proceeding in lieu 
of regional Show Cause Order proceedings is not “movement toward resolution.”5  Rather, it is a 
rejection of the Commission’s pointed choice to address large load issues on a regional basis, rather 
than impose a rigid nationwide rule, and to allow regional stakeholders the opportunity to develop 
consensus solutions through a transparent stakeholder process.6  A nationwide settlement 
proceeding would actively distract from resolution of the issues, and, as discussed below, would 
be both less transparent and substantially more burdensome on stakeholders than regional 
proceedings.  The Commission should deny the Motion and should not consider alternatives to the 
nascent Show Cause Order proceedings at this time. 
There is also no basis to grant the Motion.  The Commission has discretion whether to 
establish settlement procedures, hold a settlement conference, or appoint a settlement judge.  The 
Commission “may convene a conference of the participants in a proceeding at any time for any 
purpose related to the conduct or disposition of the proceeding,” 7 but nothing in the Commission’s 
rules require that action, especially where settlement procedures would be counterproductive.  
 
4 Motion at 2.   
5 Id. 
6 See, e.g., SPP Show Cause Order at P 33. 
7 18 C.F.R. § 385.601(a) (emphasis added).

3 
Likewise, Rule 603 states that the Commission may order the Chief Administrative Law Judge to 
appoint a settlement judge, but is not obligated to do so.8   
Movant fails to mention the material burdens that a nationwide settlement proceeding 
would present.  Hundreds of parties have submitted comments in response to the ANOPR, the 
overwhelming majority of whom are located outside of Washington, D.C.  Movant’s request would 
require those parties to undertake the costly process of hiring local counsel to participate in 
settlement proceedings at the Commission.9  It would also be impracticable, if not impossible, to 
effectively manage settlement proceedings involving the hundreds of parties that participated in 
the ANOPR proceedings.  Besides presenting physical difficulties, it would be extremely time 
consuming to manage confidentiality requirements, information presentations, roll-taking, etc.  
Movant’s proposal almost certainly would create a procedural headache and would not address the 
region-specific concerns that are the focal point of these proceedings.   
Movant also claims that settlement here “would allow the participants—the RTO/ISOs, 
transmission owners, large-load and generation interests, State representatives, ratepayer 
advocates, and intervenors such as Movant—to work toward mutually acceptable reliability, 
observability, and cost-allocation methodologies.”10  However, Movant ignores that the Show 
Cause Orders grant Transmission Owners and the relevant RTO/ISO the opportunity to seek a 90-
day abeyance to provide time to “work through the stakeholder processes to develop FPA section 
205 filings to revise the Tariff to address the issues raised in this order.”11  Thus, the Show Cause 
 
8 Id. § 385.603(d). 
9 See 18 C.F.R. § 385.601(b)(3) (“If any party fails to attend the conference such failure will 
constitute a waiver of all objections to any order or ruling arising out of, or any agreement reached 
at, the conference.”). 
10 Motion at 2. 
11E.g., Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,213, at P 33.

4 
Orders already provide for the exact cooperation Movant claims to seek, without the extra 
administrative burden.   
Finally, the Movant’s particular interest in the proposed settlement procedures appears to 
be based in some vague claim to intellectual property rights.12  As Movant states, “Movant is the 
author and rights-holder of a framework responsive to these questions, and seeks its 
consideration.”13  That is no basis for Movant to request the mandatory participation of the entire 
utility industry in her self-centered, proposed settlement proceeding.  Every Transmission Owner 
and System Operator has its own preferred “framework responsive to these questions.”  There will 
be plenty of regional stakeholder proceedings for the Movant to present her views without 
imposing substantial direct costs and administrative burdens on others.  The Movant alleges no 
cognizable, concrete, or particularized injury from the Commission’s interlocutory Show Cause 
Orders that distinguishes the Movant from any other person or entity with a policy preference.  By 
contrast, the public utilities that the Commission has actually directed to respond to the Show 
Cause Orders are responsible for developing and implementing solutions to the directives in the 
Show Cause Orders. 
For the reasons set forth above, the SPP TO Group respectfully requests the Commission 
deny the Motion. 
 
12 See Motion at 1; accord Supplemental Technical Comment and Reservation of Rights of L.M. 
Marlowe at 1-2 (July 8, 2026) (“Commenter is an independent author and developer of a published, 
timestamped analytical framework addressing deterministic reliability invariants, real-time 
observability of computational load behavior, dependency mapping, and the allocation of 
reliability and capacity burdens created by large computational loads. Commenter’s published 
work — including the Architecture of Dependency and Autonomy™, the MARLOWE™ 
Invariant-Based Diagnostic Framework, Intent-Aware Telemetry™, Continuous Invariant 
Validation™, Execution Sovereignty™, and the associated Ghost Load™ dependency analysis — 
bears directly on the reliability and cost-causation questions presented in these dockets.”). 
13 Motion at 2.

5 
 
 
 
John Crespo 
Deputy General Counsel 
American Electric Power Service Corporation 
1 Riverside Plaza 
Columbus, OH 43215 
(614) 205-2678 
jccrespo@aep.com 
On behalf of American Electric Power Service 
Corporation 
Denise Buffington 
Senior Director Federal Regulatory Affairs  
Evergy, Inc. 
1200 Main Street 
Kansas City, MO 64105 
(816) 556-2683 
denise.buffington@evergy.com 
On behalf of the Evergy Companies 
Chase Snodgrass 
Senior Regulatory Attorney 
OGE Energy Corp. 
321 N. Harvey Ave. 
Oklahoma City, OK 73101 
(405) 553-3129 
snodgrcc@oge.com 
On behalf of Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
/s/ John Lee Shepherd, Jr. 
John Lee Shepherd, Jr. 
Blake Grow 
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP 
2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20037 
(202) 419-2135 
(202) 955-1991 
jshepherd@hunton.com 
bgrow@hunton.com 
Counsel for American Electric Power Service  
Corporation, the Evergy Companies,  
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, and  
Southwestern Public Service Company 
 
Timothy T. Mastrogiacomo 
Vice President, Federal Regulatory, Legal, and Policy 
Xcel Energy Services Inc. 
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Ste. 250 
Washington, DC 20006 
(202) 661-4481 
tim.t.mastrogiacomo@xcelenergy.com 
On behalf of Southwestern Public Service Company 
July 15, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that I have on this day caused to be served a copy of the foregoing 
comments upon all parties on the service list in these proceedings in accordance with the 
requirements of Rule 2010 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. 
§ 385.2010 (2025). 
/s/ Blake Grow 
 
Blake Grow 
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP 
2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20037 
(202) 955-1991 
bgrow@hunton.com 
July 15, 2026