FERC, 듀크 에너지 캐롤라이나스의 대규모 부하 송전 규정을 비용 전가 우려에도 불구하고 승인했으며, David Rosner 위원은 이번 보호 조치를 "의미 있으나 완벽하지는 않은 새로운 보호 장치"라고 평가했다.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Friday approved large load transmission tariff measures proposed by Duke Energy Carolinas, voting 4-1. The approved provisions include rate treatment and financial security requirements for large-load-driven network upgrades, as well as shortfall payments for loads of 100 MW or larger. Even as it greenlit the plan, however, FERC urged Duke and other transmission owners to do more to protect existing customers from paying for costs caused by data centers and other large loads.

"Duke's proposal offers meaningful, if imperfect, new protections, and for that reason the commission is right to accept it," FERC Commissioner David Rosner said in a concurring statement. He noted that the utility's previous rules lacked any cost-shift protections for residential or small business customers.

FERC's decision comes as the agency awaits proposals from regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs) to strengthen their processes for interconnecting large loads such as data centers. Those proposals, due next month, are driven by a set of "show cause" orders FERC issued in June. The orders found that RTO and ISO large load interconnection rules appear inadequate, including in protecting existing customers from cost shifts when large loads require grid upgrades to come online.

The show cause orders do not affect Duke Energy Carolinas or other transmission owners that operate outside RTOs and ISOs. The utility has about 3 million retail customers in the Carolinas.

In response to growing large-load activity on its system, Duke Energy Carolinas on May 29 proposed revising its pro forma network integration transmission service agreement to add specific large-load provisions. Under the new provisions, new or transferred large loads must pay a "committed revenue contribution" equal to 75% of the megawatt value in the load schedule for each applicable month and year over a 15-year period following the in-service date of the network upgrades required to accommodate the load, FERC said in its decision.

Transmission customers that require network upgrades to accommodate a new or transferred load will also pay a monthly charge to cover the cost of building the upgrades. Once the upgrades are in service, Duke will reimburse the transmission customer for those costs plus interest.

FERC encouraged Duke to do more to protect existing customers from possible cost shifts caused by large loads. The utility should consider entering into individualized network integration agreements that provide greater protection against cost shifting than the pro forma agreement, or it could propose additional consumer protections for the newly approved pro forma NITSA, the commission said.

"We encourage transmission providers — including [Duke Energy Carolinas] — to continually reevaluate their study processes and transmission service agreements to ensure both that they are minimizing the costs of network upgrades required and that they have sufficient protections in place to shield other transmission customers from potential cost shifts as new technologies and trends in load growth emerge," FERC said.

In his concurrence, Rosner said Duke's proposal highlighted a broader problem: "[C]onsumer protections are inadequate across the country." He added that FERC may have to do more to protect consumers.

"To the extent state regulatory actions are not sufficient to protect consumers, the commission has an obligation to seriously consider expanding the cost recovery framework it established in the Large Load Show Cause Orders," Rosner said.

FERC Commissioner Lindsay See said in a concurring statement that the Duke order "involves one of the most pressing cost allocation issues we face: how to ensure large load pays its way and that residential and small business customers aren't saddled with stranded costs if those loads don't materialize, don't take service at the expected level, or exit prematurely."

See said the proposal was "not perfect," but it was better than the status quo, which left existing customers "wholly exposed." She said Duke's proposed committed revenue contribution mechanism would have been stronger if it required transmission customers serving large loads to post financial security at "a large load-worthy scale." "That additional step would ensure that if the transmission customer serving large loads goes bankrupt, other ratepayers will not be stuck paying for grid upgrades they did not cause," See said.

FERC Commissioner Judy Chang voted against Duke's proposal, saying the agency should have offered the utility guidance on how to improve it. In her dissent, Chang said the proposal lacks meaningful financial security requirements and adequate transparency around executed large load agreements. She also said the proposal defaults to rolled-in rate treatment for large load network upgrades, which may not adequately protect other customers.

"I do not believe that [Duke Energy Carolinas] has demonstrated that its filing represents an acceptable level of customer protection, and the precedent the commission establishes here takes a step backwards from the strong arguments set forth in the Large Load Show Cause Orders," Chang said.