{"document":{"slug":"filing-20260722-5143","title":"Answer of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. in opposition to Motion for the Establishment of Settlement Procedures and Convening of a Settlement Conference, or, in the Alternative, for the Appointment of a Settlement Judge of L.M. Marlowe","issued":"2026-07-22","accession":"20260722-5143","docket":"EL26-68-000","group":"SPP filings","filer":"Southwest Power Pool, Inc.","kind":"answer","file":"sources/originals/20260722-5143_01.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_Number=20260722-5143","sha256":"0983778f0e690e6f94aff996f1b1d04d5a05652b319db57ca6d0182b9d1a6a46","pages":8,"tokens":1744,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":170,"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA \nBEFORE THE \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \nSouthwest Power Pool, Inc. \n) \nDocket No. \nEL26-68-000 \n) \nANSWER OF  \nSOUTHWEST POWER POOL, INC. \nPursuant to Rules 213 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy \nRegulatory Commission (the “Commission” or “FERC”), 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.213, \nSouthwest Power Pool, Inc. (“SPP”) submits this answer to the Motion for the \nEstablishment of Settlement Procedures and Convening of a Settlement Conference, or, in \nthe Alternative, for the Appointment of a Settlement Judge of L.M. Marlowe (“Movant”)1 \nfiled in this proceeding. The Commission should deny the Marlowe Motion as described \nbelow and allow SPP to move forward with responding to the Commission with regional \nsolutions to the issues outlined in this docket.  \n1\nMotion for Establishment of Settlement Procedures and Convening of a Settlement \nConference, or, in the Alternative, for the Appointment of a Settlement Judge of \nL.M. Marlowe, Docket No. EL26-68-000 (July 8, 2026) (“Marlowe Motion”). L.M.\nMarlowe is also known as Lisa Melton."},{"page":2,"startToken":170,"endToken":453,"text":"2 \nI.\nBACKGROUND\nOn June 18, 2026, the Commission issued show cause orders to SPP2 and all other\nregional transmission organizations and independent system operators (collectively “Show \nCause Orders”).3 Each of the Show Cause Orders are tailored specifically to each of the six \nregional grid operators under the Commission’s jurisdiction. In the Show Cause Orders, \nthe Commission directed each regional grid operator and its transmission owners to, within \nsixty (60) days, justify why their current tariffs remain just and reasonable in the absence \nof clear and consistent provisions for large load customers or, alternatively, to propose \nchanges.4 Numerous entities have filed motions to intervene in the Show Cause Orders \ndockets.   \n In the Marlowe Motion, the Movant requests that the Commission: (1) establish \nsettlement procedures and convene a settlement conference of the participants pursuant to \nRule 601 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.601; or \nin the alternative, and if the if the Commission finds settlement-judge procedures \nappropriate, appoint a settlement judge pursuant to Rule 603 of the Commission’s Rules \nof Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.603, to facilitate settlement of the matters \n2\nSw. Power Pool, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,213 (2026) (“SPP Show Cause Order”). The \nShow Cause Order directed SPP to provide, within thirty days, a detailed \ninformational report. \n3\nSee, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2026); N.Y. Indep. Sys. \nOperator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2026); Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, \nInc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2026); California Independent System Operator \nCorporation, 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026); ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ \n61,215 (2026). \n4\nSPP Show Cause Order at P 3."},{"page":3,"startToken":453,"endToken":751,"text":"3 \npresented.5 The Movant claims, without justification or legal support, that the \nestablishment of settlement proceedings in these dockets would allow the participants in \nthese dockets of the Show Cause Orders the ability “to work toward mutually acceptable \nreliability, observability, and cost-allocation methodologies under the guidance of a \nneutral, rather than through protracted contested proceedings alone.”6  \nOf note, through the Movant’s Marlowe Motion and other filings in the docket, the \nMovant’s interest in the proposed settlement procedures appears to be based, at least in \npart, on the Movant’s own commercial interests.7 As stated in the Marlow Motion, the \n“Movant is the author and rights-holder of a framework responsive to these questions, and \nseeks its consideration.”8 These commercial interests provide no basis to support a \nnationwide settlement proceeding. \nOn July 15, 2026, the Southwest Power Pool Transmission Owner Group filed an \nanswer in response to the Marlowe Motion.9 Although not responding to the SPP TO Group \n5\nMarlow Motion at 1. \n6\nMarlowe Motion at 1. \n7\nSee Marlowe Motion at 1; see also, Supplemental Technical Comment and \nReservation of Rights of L.M. Marlowe at 1-2 (July 8, 2026) (“Commenter is an \nindependent author and developer of a published, timestamped analytical \nframework addressing deterministic reliability invariants, real-time observability of \ncomputational load behavior, dependency mapping, and the allocation of reliability \nand capacity burdens created by large computational loads. Commenter’s published \nwork — including the Architecture of Dependency and Autonomy™, the \nMARLOWE™ \nInvariant-Based \nDiagnostic \nFramework, \nIntent-Aware \nTelemetry™, Continuous Invariant Validation™, Execution Sovereignty™, and \nthe associated Ghost Load™ dependency analysis — bears directly on the \nreliability and cost-causation questions presented in these dockets.”) \n8\nMarlowe Motion at 2. \n9\nAnswer of the Southwest Power Pool Transmission Owner Group, EL26-68-000, \net al. (July 15, 2026) (“SPP TO Group Answer”)."},{"page":4,"startToken":751,"endToken":1008,"text":"4 \nAnswer in this filing, SPP supports the SPP TO Group Answer in its request for the \nCommission to deny the Marlowe Motion as being premature and a profound disruption \nthe Commission’s well-reasoned decision to address the challenge of large load additions \non a regional basis through Show Cause Orders. \nII.\nANSWER\nA.\nThe Motion Is Inconsistent with the Commission’s Regional Approach\nAs stated in the SPP Show Cause Order, the “[i]ndividual show cause proceedings \nwill allow the Commission to ensure that solutions to the problems the Secretary [of the \nDepartment of Energy] identified are tailored to the specific, varied circumstances and \nmarket constructs of each region.”10 The Commission goes on to state that the Show Cause \nOrders “reveals the many ways in which those orders are customized for each market’s \nunique circumstances and progress (or lack thereof) towards serving large load…and \n“leave room for each market to tailor operational requirements for large loads that are \nparticular to their region [] and otherwise account for incumbent regional differences on \ntopics such as cost allocation and cost transparency, study processes, and network upgrade \nprocedures..”11 The Commission found that “[p]roceeding via [the Show Cause Order] \nallow the markets (and their respective transmission owners) to explain, in the first \ninstance, how to address the Commission’s concerns.” 12 \nThe Movant’s request for the establishment of a nationwide settlement procedures \nand convening of a settlement conference to facilitate resolution all of dockets the \n10\nSPP Show Cause Order at P 6. \n11\nId. \n12\nId. at P 7."},{"page":5,"startToken":1008,"endToken":1291,"text":"5 \nCommission issued Show Cause Orders would contravene the ability for each of the \nregional grid operators to appropriately respond to the Commission’s Show Cause Orders \nas it relates to the just and reasonableness of each entities regional open access transmission \ntariff. Because of the vast regional differences in such things as cost allocation, cost \ntransparency, study processes, network upgrades, and market operations, it would be \nimpossible to resolve all the issues presented by the Commission in the Show Cause Orders \nin a single settlement proceeding.  \nAlthough Movant in the Marlowe Motion claims that the Commission’s \nestablishment of a nationwide settlement proceeding would be timelier resolution than \n“protracted contested proceedings,”13 the Movant provides no justification to this claim. In \nreality, it would be impracticable, if not impossible, to effectively manage settlement \nproceedings involving the hundreds of parties that are expected to participate in the Show \nCause Order proceedings. SPP and its stakeholders’ time is better spent working together \non solutions to potential issues outlined in the SPP Show Cause Order rather than being \nrequired to participate in convoluted national settlement proceedings that will not result in \nsolutions specific to the SPP region. \nThere is simply no basis provided in the Marlowe Motion for the Commission to \ngrant the Movant request. Although the Commission has the discretion whether to establish \nsettlement procedures, hold a settlement conference, or appoint a settlement judge, nothing \nin the Commission’s rules requires that action.14 This is especially the case when the \n13\n Marlowe Motion at 2. \n14\n18 C.F.R. § 385.601(a) (“The Commission…may convene a conference of the \nparticipants in a proceeding at any time for any purpose related to the conduct or"},{"page":6,"startToken":1291,"endToken":1555,"text":"6 \nsettlement procedures would be detrimental to regional solutions the Commission desires \nfrom its findings in the Show Cause Orders. \nB.\nThe Motion is Premature\nThe Commission has only recently instituted these proceedings. Pursuant to the \nSPP Show Cause Order, SPP is currently evaluating the issues identified by the \nCommission and preparing its response. The Commission specifically afforded SPP the \nopportunity to utilize its stakeholder process to develop potential tariff revisions and, if \nappropriate, request additional time to do so. That process has not yet run its course. \nBecause no proposed tariff revisions have been filed and no administrative record has been \ndeveloped, there is presently no concrete controversy suitable for settlement. Settlement \nprocedures are designed to facilitate resolution of identified disputes—not to substitute for \nthe initial development of proposals that may ultimately become the subject of Commission \nreview. Granting the Motion at this early stage would invert the ordinary sequence \ncontemplated by Sections 205 and 206 of the FPA by requiring settlement discussions \nbefore parties have articulated the proposals that might ultimately require resolution. \nFinally, Although Rules 601 and 603 of the Commission’s Rules of Practices and \nProcedure authorize the Commission to convene settlement procedures or appoint a \nsettlement judge, those rules are discretionary rather than mandatory. The Motion identifies \nno extraordinary circumstance warranting departure from the Commission's recently \nestablished procedural framework. General concerns regarding reliability and large load \nintegration—issues that motivated issuance of the Show Cause Order itself—do not \ndisposition of the proceeding, including submission and consideration of offers of \nsettlement or the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures.”)."},{"page":7,"startToken":1555,"endToken":1683,"text":"7 \nestablish that settlement is appropriate before the Commission has received the very \nresponses it directed the regional transmission organizations to prepare. Moreover, to the \nextent the Motion seeks consideration of the movant's own technical framework, \nintellectual property, or proposed methodologies, those matters may be presented through \nthe ordinary comment and stakeholder processes available in these proceedings. They do \nnot provide a basis for compelling Commission-supervised settlement involving all \nparticipants. \nII.\nCONCLUSION\nSPP respectfully requests that the Commission accept this Answer and deny and\ndismiss the Marlowe Motion. \nRespectfully submitted, \n/s/ Justin A. Hinton \nJustin A. Hinton \nSenior Attorney \nMeredith Powell \nAttorney \nSouthwest Power Pool, Inc. \n201 Worthen Drive \nLittle Rock, AR  72223-4936 \n(501) 482-2468\njhinton@spp.org\nAttorney for Southwest Power Pool, Inc. \nDated:    __________\nJuly 22, 2026"},{"page":8,"startToken":1683,"endToken":1744,"text":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \nI hereby certify that I have on this day served the foregoing document upon each \nperson designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding. \nDated at Little Rock, Arkansas, this _________ day of July, 2026. \n/s/ Cassie Butler \nCassie Butler \nSouthwest Power Pool, Inc. \n201 Worthen Drive \nLittle Rock, AR  72223-4936 \n(501) 614-3200\n22nd"}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":2,"endAt":3,"startToken":0,"endToken":171},{"p":2,"at":3,"title":"I. BACKGROUND","method":"printed heading","endPage":2,"endAt":6,"startToken":171,"endToken":172},{"p":2,"at":6,"title":"BACKGROUND","method":"printed heading","endPage":4,"endAt":309,"startToken":172,"endToken":801},{"p":4,"at":309,"title":"II. ANSWER","method":"printed heading","endPage":4,"endAt":320,"startToken":801,"endToken":803},{"p":4,"at":320,"title":"A. The Motion Is Inconsistent with the Commission’s Regional Approach","method":"printed heading","endPage":6,"endAt":137,"startToken":803,"endToken":1311},{"p":6,"at":137,"title":"B. The Motion is Premature","method":"printed heading","endPage":7,"endAt":537,"startToken":1311,"endToken":1625},{"p":7,"at":537,"title":"II. CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":7,"endAt":541,"startToken":1625,"endToken":1626},{"p":7,"at":541,"title":"CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":8,"endAt":0,"startToken":1626,"endToken":1683},{"p":8,"at":0,"title":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE","method":"printed heading","endPage":8,"endAt":396,"startToken":1683,"endToken":1744}]}