Below are summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's January 20, 2022 open meeting, pursuant to the sunshine notice released on January 13, 2022.
In this issue…
- Electric Items
- Gas Items
- Hydro Items
- Certificate Items
E-1 – Internal Network Security Monitoring for High and Medium Impact Bulk Electric System Cyber Systems (Docket No. RM22-3-000). Agenda item E-1 may be a notice of proposed rulemaking relating to a potential Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standard for internal network security monitoring for High Impact and Medium Impact Bulk Electric System Cyber Systems.
E-2 – PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. ER19-105-005). On April 15, 2019, the Commission issued an order accepting, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.'s (PJM) quadrennial revision of its Variable Resource Requirement (VRR) Curve used in the Reliability Pricing Model (RPM), effective January 17, 2019. The VRR Curve is a demand curve that is used, in combination with the supply curve formed from capacity supplier sell offers, to clear PJM's capacity auctions. The April 2019 Order found PJM's proposed quadrennial revisions to be a just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential modification to PJM's existing VRR Curves and that the changes result in a curve that meets PJM's reliability needs at a reasonable total cost to load. On April 16, 2020, the Commission issued an order denying rehearing of the April 2019 Order. Public Interest and Customer Organizations filed a "Motion for Expedited Order on Remand" on October 8, 2021, requesting the Commission review the April 2019 and April 2020 Orders as a result of the decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Delaware Division of Public. Advocate v. FERC. Agenda item E-2 may be an order relating to the Commission's April 2019 and April 2020 Orders and the motion filed by Public Interest and Customer Organizations.
E-3 – Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER22-461-000 and ER22-462-000). On November 22, 2021, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) filed a request for limited waivers of the provisions of its Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff (MISO Tariff) relating to certain demand response and stored energy resources. Agenda item E-3 may be an order regarding MISO's limited waiver request.
E-4 – Talen Energy Marketing, LLC (Docket No. ER22-474-000), EF Kenilworth LLC (Docket No. ER22-539-000), Chambersburg Energy, LLC (Docket No. ER22-550-000), Rockford Power, LLC (Docket No. ER22-551-000), Rockford Power II, LLC (Docket No. ER22-552-000), Troy Energy, LLC (Docket No. ER22-553-000), LSP University Park, LLC (Docket No. ER22-554-000), University Park Energy, LLC (Docket No. ER22-555-000), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Docket No. ER22-681-000), Energy Center Dover, LLC and Monitoring Analytics, LLC (Docket No. ER22-704-000), PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. EL22-22-000). On December 17, 2021, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) filed a letter agreement between itself and Monitoring Analytics, LLC in its capacity as Independent Market Monitor for PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (IMM). The letter agreement relates to Market Seller Offer Caps for Exelon sell offers into the PJM Base Residual Auction (BRA) for the 2023/24 Delivery Year. On January 14, 2022, Exelon filed a withdrawal of letter agreement, stating that it has not yet become effective. Agenda item E-4 may be an order on the withdrawal by Exelon.
E-5 – PacifiCorp (Docket Nos. ER-20-1828-000, ER20-1828-001, ER20-1828-002). On May 14, 2020, PacifiCorp submitted proposed amendments to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff) pursuant to the directives furnished in Order No. 864 by the Commission related to the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Order No. 864 required public utilities with transmission formula rates to submit a filing demonstrating compliance with the final rule, including revisions to its formula rates and calculations of potential excess or deficient accumulated deferred income taxes. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the Tariff revisions to the transmission formula rate by PacifiCorp.
E-6 – UGI Corporation (Docket No. ER21-2778-000). On August 26, 2021, UGI Corporation (UGI) submitted a petition for waiver of affiliate transaction pricing rule related to its subsidiary, UGI Utilities, Inc. (UGIU). In the petition, UGI requests that UGIU continue to provide general and administrative non-power goods and services to non-utility affiliates and market-regulated power sales affiliates at cost rather than the higher of cost or market price. UGIU has operated as exempt from regulatory oversight because UGI is a single-state holding company. Agenda item E-6 may be an order on the waiver petition as brought forward by UGI.
E-7 – PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., and Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (Docket No. ER20-1832-001). On May 15, 2020, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. and Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (collectively, Duke Energy) submitted proposed amendments to its transmission formula rate in the PJM Tariff pursuant to the directives furnished in Order No. 864 by the Commission related to the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. On December 16, 2020, the Commission issued a deficiency letter to Duke Energy, requesting additional information pertaining to ADIT calculations and general accounting clarifications. On January 15, 2021, Duke Energy filed a response to the December 16 deficiency letter. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the Tariff revisions to the transmission formula rate by Duke Energy.
E-8 – Assembly Solar I, LLC (Docket No. ER21-1215-002). On February 26, 2021, Assembly Solar I, LLC (Assembly Solar I) submitted a rate schedule for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service (Rate Schedule) as that service is defined in Schedule 2 to the Open Access Transmission Tariff of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO). On April 27, 2021 the Commission issued an order accepting and suspending the Rate Schedule and established settlement procedures. During settlement discussions, Assembly Solar I, Michigan Public Power Agency, and Lansing Board of Water and Light reached an agreement in November of 2021. On November 9, 2021 Assembly Solar I, LLC filed a Joint Offer of Settlement and Settlement Agreement to resolve all outstanding issues previously set for hearing. The settlement judge issued a certification of the uncontested settlement on December 10, 2021 and subsequently terminated the settlement judge procedures on December 22, 2021. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on the Joint Offer of Settlement and Settlement Agreement as brought forward by Assembly Solar I.
E-9 – Entergy Louisiana, LLC (Docket No. ER20-2541-001). On July 29, 2020, Entergy Louisiana, LLC (Entergy) submitted a tariff filing for a proposed cost-based rate schedule under which the Entergy will recover its revenue requirement for the reactive power production capabilities (Reactive Power Revenue Requirement) of the J. Wayne Leonard Power Station (JWLPS). On August 19th Cleco Power LLC and Cleco Cajun LLC filed a Joint Protest, which Entergy subsequently filed a Request for Leave to Respond and Response to Protest. On September 30 the Commission accepted and suspended the proposed rate schedule and established settlement proceedings. On September 28, 2021 Entergy submitted a JWLPS Reactive Offer Settlement to be effective October 1, 2020. The judge certified the Uncontested Settlement on November 22, 2021 and subsequently terminated settlement procedures on December 7, 2021. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the JWLPS Reactive Offer Settlement.
E-10 – Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC, Indiana Crossroads Solar Generation LLC, and Meadow Lake Solar Park LLC, Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC, Dunn's Bridge I Solar Generation LLC, and Dunns Bridge Solar Center, LLC (Docket Nos. ER22-448-000, ER22-449-000). On November 19, 2021, Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC (NIPSCO) filed two Requests for Authorization to Undertake Affiliate Sales (Dockets ER22-448 and ER22-449). The first request filed by NIPSCO was filed on behalf of NIPSCO, Indiana Crossroads Solar Generation LLC, and Meadow Lake Solar Park LLC d/b/a Indiana Crossroads Solar Park requesting authorization to undertake affiliate wholesale sales of energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates to NIPSCO pursuant to a power purchase agreement (ER22-448). The second request filed by NIPSCO was filed on behalf of NISPCO, Dunn's Bridge I Solar Generation LLC, and Dunns Bridge Solar Center, LLC requesting authorization to undertake affiliate wholesale sales of energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates to NIPSCO pursuant to a power purchase agreement (ER22-449). The applicants requested the Commission grant authorization by January 21, 2022 for both authorization requests. Agenda item E-10 may be an order on the affiliate sale authorization requests.
E-11 – NorthWestern Corporation, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER20-1090-000, ER20-1961-000, ER20-1961-001). On February 26, 2020, NorthWestern Corporation (NorthWestern) submitted an Order No. 864 Compliance Filing to address rate changes for Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes under ER20-1090 (Compliance Filing). On June 2, 2020 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff Addendum 27 to Attachment H containing the transmission formula rate template and implementation protocols of the NorthWestern (Tariff Filing) under Docket No. ER20-1961. The entirety of SPP's Tariff Filing is its proposal to incorporate the revisions filed by NorthWestern in its Compliance Filing. On June 8, 2020 Missouri River Energy Services (MRES) filed a request that the Commission grant its intervention, consolidate the Docket No. ER20-1961 Tariff Revisions proceeding with the Compliance Filing proceeding in Docket No. ER20-1090, schedule an initial technical conference, and allow full and open discovery. Basin Electric Power Cooperative also filed a Motion to Intervene Out-of-Time on June 19, 2020 under Docket No. ER20-1090. NorthWestern Corporation answered MRES' Motions and Protest on June 23, to address MRES' protest NorthWestern offered to submit a Section 205 Federal Power Act filing proposing all the formula rate revisions identified in MRES' protest. Following NorthWestern's answer MRES withdrew its Protest and request for a technical conference and discovery. In February of 2021 the Commission issued a Deficiency Letter to both the Compliance Filing and the Tariff Filing. NorthWestern and SPP, on behalf of NorthWestern, responded on March 12, 2021 to the deficiency letter. Agenda item E-11 may be an order on NorthWestern's response to the deficiency letter.
E-12 – Duke Energy Indiana, LLC and GIC Infra Holdings Pte. Ltd (Docket No. EC21-56-000). On February 25, 2021, Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (Duke Indiana) and GIC Infra Holdings Pte. Ltd (GIC) filed a Joint Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act. Under the two-step transaction GIC will acquire a 19.9% indirect minority interest in Duke Indiana. On March 18, 2021, Public Citizen, Sierra Club and Citizens Action Coalition filed a Joint Protest. Duke Indiana and GIC filed a Joint Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer on March 26, 2021, which included a confidential attachment, a copy of the draft Form of Duke Energy Indiana Holdco, LLC Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement (LLC Agreement). Public Citizen, Sierra Club and Citizens Action Coalition filed a Motion to Answer and Answer on April 12, 2021 objecting to the fact the acquisition was deliberately structured in such a way to avoid regulatory review by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and that it will result in the Government of Singapore having control over a franchised utility, through its wholly-owned entity GIC, given its affiliation with Genesee & Wyoming, which owns and leases freight railroads. The Commission issued a deficiency letter on May 17, 2021 and Duke Indiana and GIC Replied on May 28. On July 27, 2021 the Commission requested additional information and that the form of the LLC Agreement be made public, Duke Indiana responded two days later and waived any objection the LLC Agreement being made public. On August 24, 2021 the Commission approved the transaction and filed an Order Authorizing Disposition and Acquisition of Jurisdictional Facilities. Following the Commission's authorization Duke Indiana filed a revised LLC Agreement on September 3, 2021, stating that it did not differ materially from the form filed in March of 2021. On September 28, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and Citizens Action Coalition protested Duke Indiana's September 2021 filing version of the LLC Agreement and specifically protest Duke Indiana's statement that the revised LLC Agreement does not materially differ from the March 2021 form LLC Agreement. On October 12, Duke energy responded stating that all sections identified as containing changes were expressly flagged in the Form of LLC Agreement as being subject to revision prior to finalization and that none of the revisions are relevant to the Commission's four-factor public interest evaluation. Most recently, on November 4, 2021 Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and Citizens Action Coalition submitted non-confidential versions of previous submissions which contained information from the LLC Agreement previously obtained through the protective order. The parties upheld their September 28 protest regarding the revised LLC Agreement, arguing that it materially differs from the previously filed form LLC Agreement in March of 2021. Agenda item E-12 may be an order regarding Duke Indiana's September 2021 submission of the revised LLC Agreement.
E-13 – Illinois Municipal Electric Agency v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. EL21-79-000). On May 28, 2021, Illinois Municipal Electric Agency (IMEA) filed a Complaint against PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) arguing that PJM's significant reduction of Incremental Capacity Transfer Rights (ICTRs) certified, award, and allocated to IMEA for 2021/2022 Delivery Year violates the PJM Tariff and the Upgrade Construction Service Agreement it entered into with IMEA. IMEA is seeking refunds with interest and relief to prevent violations in the future. The Commission granted PJM's extension of time until June 28, 2021 for submission of its comments. On June 28, 2021, Radford's' Run Wind Farm LLC, submitted a Motion to Intervene and Answer and H-P Energy submitted a Motion to Intervene and Answer in Support of Complaint. In support of PJM, Exelon Corporation and Exelon Generation Company, LLC submitted a Protest arguing IMEA's complaint should be rejected on June 28, 2021. On that same day PJM filed its Answer, which it subsequently corrected on June 29, 2021. IMEA filed its response to PJM's answer on July 13, 2021. Boston Energy Trading and Marking LLC (BETM) also filed Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer to IMEA's complaint, concurring with IMEA, H-P Energy, and Radford's Run that ICTRs have been devalued as a result of PJM's to adjust ICTRs into the Mid-Atlantic Area Counsel Locational Deliverability Area. Additionally, on July 13 the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) submitted an Answer and Motion for Leave to answer arguing that in their pleadings, PJM and Exelon et al. demonstrate that IMEA's complaint is without merit and should be rejected. IMEA responded to the IMM's Answer on July 21, 2021. PJM and the IMM submitted additional answers on August 2 and August 6 respectively. PJM continues to maintain that PJM's as corrected June 29 response fully rebuts the claims from IMEA, H-P Energy, Radford's Run, and BETM regarding proration of payment to holders of ICTRs. IMEA responded to these additional answers from PJM and the IMM on August 26, 2021 requesting the Commission grant its complaint or establish a hearing and settlement procedures to address the material issues of fact in dispute. Most recently, the IMM filed a response on August 26, 2021 clarifying the IMM's position on reform to PJM market rules. Agenda item E-13 may be an order on the Complaint against PJM as brought forth by IMEA.
E-14 – Basin Electric Power Cooperative and North Iowa Municipal Electric Cooperative Association v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. EL21-90-000). On July 16, 2021, Basin Electric Power Cooperative and North Iowa Municipal Electric Cooperative Association (collectively, Complainants) filed a formal Complaint, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), against Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP). Complainants asserted that SPP violated the terms of its Tariff by de-committing several Complainant resources that were committed through the Multi-Day Reliability Assessment process for reasons other than addressing an Emergency Condition, as delineated in the provisions of the SPP Tariff. On August 19, 2021, SPP submitted an Answer to the Complaint, stating that the resources operated by the Complainants were not reliable and would be on outage during the emergency weather event. SPP requested that the Commission dismiss the Complaint as the resources were improperly self-declared and Complainants sought to declare outages for a financial incentive rather than bolster reliability for the SPP grid. Agenda item E-14 may be an order on the Complaint.
E-15 – Green Development, LLC v. New England Power Company and Narragansett Electric Company (Docket No. EL21-47-001). On February 10, 2021, Green Development, LLC (Green Development) filed a formal Complaint, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the FPA, against New England Power Company and Narragansett Electric Company (collectively, Respondents). In the complaint, Green Development alleged that Respondents performed an inaccurate assessment of Direct Assignment Facility charges (DAF charges) associated with its projects and subsequently passed through unauthorized DAF charges to Green Development. Green Development asserted that its distribution-level, state-jurisdictional projects are not classified as DAFs under the terms of the ISO New England (ISO-NE) Tariff and therefore are not built to accommodate a Transmission Service request in the ISO-NE market. On August 6, 2021, Respondents submitted an Answer to the Complaint, stating that Green Development has not been required, at the time of the Complaint, to pay any DAF charges and that the Commission should dismiss the Complaint because the proper forum to contemplate this matter is the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission. On September 23, 2021, the Commission issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Complaint, finding that Green Development has not sufficiently demonstrated that its upgrades are not being constructed for the sole benefit of a particular transmission customer, but finding that Green Development has shown that the upgrades have not been specified in a separate agreement pursuant to the terms of the ISO-NE Tariff. On October 25, 2021, Green Development filed a request for rehearing of the September 23 order, namely relating to the Commission finding that it failed to satisfy its burden under section 206 of the FPA to demonstrate that the DAF upgrades are being utilized by a sole customer. Agenda item E-15 may be an order on the request for rehearing by Green Development.
E-16 – Persimmon Creek Wind Farm 1, LLC (Docket No. EL22-12-000). On November 12, 2021, Persimmon Creek Wind Farm 1, LLC (PC1) submitted a Petition for Declaratory Order seeking confirmation that its status as an exempt wholesale generator (EWG) will not be affected by the interconnection of retail load to its interconnection facilities. On December 10, 2021, PC1 submitted a Notice of Withdrawal of the Petition, stating that it has engaged in discussions to supply power to the datacenter located near to the PC1 wind project. Agenda item E-16 may be an order on the Petition or Notice of Withdrawal by PC1.
E-17 – Independent Market Monitor for PJM v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. EL19-47-000); Office of the People's Counsel for the District of Columbia, Delaware Division of the Public Advocate, Citizens Utility Board, Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, Maryland Office of People's Counsel, Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division, and PJM Industrial Customer Coalition v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. EL19-63-000); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket Nos. ER21-2444-000, ER21-2877-000). On February 21, 2019, Monitoring Analytics, LLC (IMM), acting in its capacity as the Independent Market Monitor for PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), filed, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules and Practice and Procedure, a formal complaint against PJM, requesting that the Commission direct PJM to revise the expected number of Performance Assessment Intervals (PAI) used to set the default Market Seller Offer Cap (MSOC) in Reliability Pricing Model (RPM) auctions to a level consistent with a reasonable and supportable expectation of PAI. IMM claims that the current PAIs result in an MSOC that is overstated. On April 15, 2019, the Office of the People's Counsel for the District of Columbia, Delaware Division of the Public Advocate, Citizens Utility Board, Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, Maryland Office of People's Counsel, Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division, and PJM Industrial Customer Coalition (collectively, the Joint Consumer Advocates) filed, pursuant to Rule 206 and 212 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a formal complaint against PJM alleging that the current MSOC used in the RPM Base Residual Auction is unjust and unreasonable. The Joint Consumer Advocates also asked that their complaint be consolidated with the IMM's complaint. On March 18, 2021, the Commission issued an order granting complaints and ordering additional briefing, principally finding that it is no longer just and reasonable for PJM to use 360 for the Expected PAI in the default offer cap formula, and subsequently, initiate a further briefing to determine the appropriate replacement rate. Initial briefs were filed by the respective parties on or by May 3, 2021; reply briefs were filed on or before June 10, 2021. Agenda item E-17 may be an order furnishing a replacement rate in the default offer cap formula.
G-1 – Five-Year Review of the Oil Pipeline Index (Docket No. RM20-14-001). On June 18, 2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) inviting comments on the proposed index level utilized to calculate annual changes to interstate oil pipeline rate ceilings as originally established in Order No. 561 for the ensuing five years, commencing July 1, 2021. In the NOI, the Commission initially proposed to use the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods (PPI-FG) plus 0.09 percent as the index level for the upcoming five-year period. The Commission adopted two significant changes to the cost-of-service methodology used to populate certain data in the calculation: 1) the revision of Commission policy pertaining to the treatment of income taxes and Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes (ADIT) in the rates of master limited partnership pipelines; and 2) the issuance of a policy statement revising Commission methodology for determining return on equity (ROE) for interstate natural gas and oil pipelines. On December 17, 2020, the Commission issued an order establishing the index level of PPI-FG plus 0.78 percent for the five-year period. In the order, the Commission clarifies that other proposed changes to the index calculation as presented by various intervening parties would not be adopted. On January 19, 2021, several parties comprising pipeline and shipping interests filed respective requests for rehearing of the December 17 order. Generally, the rehearing requests sought clarification or re-calculation of certain methodology components, attributing an erroneous outcome that was unintentional in nature rather than a deliberate Commission choice. Agenda item G-1 may be an order on the requests for rehearing.
G-2 – Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Docket Nos. RP21-1001-001, RP21-1001-000). On July 30, 2021, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) submitted a rate case filing pursuant to section 4 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). In the filing, Texas Eastern included revised tariff records and explanatory material in support of the proposed rate changes. Texas Eastern asserted that the rate case is just and reasonable and would provide a necessary financial return following a number of ongoing efforts to modernize its system and recover its cost of service. Overall, the proposed rate case would increase revenues to Texas Eastern by $387,489,818. In August of 2021, a number of parties including shippers and customers filed respective protests, substantive comments in opposition to, and requests for maximum suspension relating to the proposed rate case. The protests generally find that Texas Eastern has failed to demonstrate that its proposed major rate increases and warranted and that various issues of material fact should be addressed at a formal hearing. On August 31, 2021, the Commission issued an order rejecting the rate case as proposed by Texas Eastern and directing Texas Eastern to show cause, pursuant to section 5 of the NGA, as to why its reservation charge crediting procedures are in compliance with Commission policy. On September 29, 2021, Texas Eastern submitted a request for rehearing of the August 31 order. On December 21, 2021, Texas Eastern filed a Petition for Review of the August 31 denial and show cause order in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On January 11, 2022, Texas Eastern filed an Answer, requesting that the Commission find the reservation charge adjustment does not contravene Commission policy in the event of a partial force majeure outage and to consolidate this matter with the ongoing rate case proceeding. Agenda item G-2 may be an order on the January 11 answer by Texas Eastern.
H-1 – Aquenergy Systems, LLC (Docket No. P-2883-009). On May 30, 2018, Aquenergy Systems, LLC (Aquenergy) submitted an application, pursuant to the FPA, for a new major license relating to the proposed continued operation of the Fries Hydroelectric Project No. 2883 located in Grayson County, Virginia. On December 17, 2020, the Commission issued the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, finding that issuance of a new license would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Agenda item H-1 may be an order on the new license application by Aquenergy.
H-2 – Blackstone Hydro, Inc. (Docket No. P-3023-014). On October 1, 2018, Blackstone Hydro, Inc. (Blackstone) submitted an application, pursuant to the FPA, for a new major license relating to the proposed continued operation of the Tupperware Hydroelectric Project No. 3023 located in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. On July 10, 2020, the Commission issued the EA for the project, finding that issuance of a new license along with implementation of staff-recommended environmental measures would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Agenda item H-2 may be an order on the new license application by Blackstone.
H-3 – Rivers Electric Company, Inc. and Rivers Electric, LLC (Docket No. P-9985-033). On August 18, 2020, Rivers Electric, LLC (Rivers) submitted an application, pursuant to the FPA, for a transfer of license relating to Project No. 9985 from Rivers Electric Company, Inc., following the merger of the two companies effectuated in New York state. Agenda item H-3 may be an order on the license transfer application to Rivers.
C-1 – Rover Pipeline, LLC and Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (Docket No. IN19-4-000). On March 18, 2021, the Commission issued an order to show cause and notice of proposed penalty against Rover Pipeline, LLC and Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (jointly, Rover). In the order, the Commission directed Rover to demonstrate that it had not violated section 157.5 of the regulations of the Commission by furnishing misleading information in its Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA. The Commission proposed to levy a civil penalty to Rover in the amount of $20,160,000. Namely, the Commission alleges that Rover did not truthfully represent the intended action regarding the Stoneman House, a farmstead dating back to 1843 that would be located near the largest compressor station of the project. In the CPCN application, Rover claimed it was committed to generate no adverse effects to the Stoneman House. However, Commission enforcement staff determined that Rover in fact had planned to purchase and demolish the property without notifying the Commission. Rover then demolished the Stoneman House in May of 2016, contrary to the information disclosed in its Draft Environmental Impact Statement response and updated Landowner List filing. On June 21, 2021, Rover submitted an answer and denial, namely purporting that Commission enforcement staff exaggerated the significance of the Stoneman House, which was not protected under any historic preservation resource designation and was a property in disrepair that was not precluded from demolition by any owner. Rover also states that Commission enforcement staff conflated the potential effects to a neighboring property with project-related mitigation efforts necessary to preserve landowner interests and environmental quality. On July 21, 2021, Commission enforcement staff submitted a reply to the June 21 answer, advocating that Rover has only raised disputed issues of material fact and for a hearing to be set before an administrative law judge (ALJ). On September 15, 2021, Rover submitted a surreply to the July 21 reply, stating that enforcement staff incorrectly interpreted the preservation requirements for separate properties as well as asserting that the Commission lacks the authority to adjudicate the matter through an ALJ proceeding as sought by enforcement staff. Agenda item C-1 may be an order on the show cause order and subsequent filings by Rover.
C-2 – Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. (Docket Nos. CP16-9-011, CP16-9-012). On October 22, 2015, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC (Maritimes) submitted, pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA, an abbreviated application requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity, and related authorizations, for the Atlantic Bridge Project (Project) which consists of pipeline and compression facilities in New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. On January 25, 2017, the Commission issued a certificate and granted requested authorizations for the Project. Algonquin subsequently commenced construction and incrementally placed specified facilities in service to comply with environmental conditions imposed by the Commission. On September 16, 2020, as supplemented September 20, 2020, Algonquin and Maritimes submitted a request to place certain facilities in-service; specifically, the Weymouth Compressor Station in Norfolk, MA and the Maritimes Westbrook Metering and Regulator Station in Cumberland, ME. Commission Staff issued a letter order granting authorization to place the facilities in service on September 24, 2020. On October 23, 2020, the Fore River Residents Against Compressor Station, the City of Quincy, Massachusetts, Weymouth Councilor Rebecca Haugh, Michael H. Hayden, and Food & Water Watch filed a request for rehearing and rescission of the letter order granting in-service authorization. On February 18, 2021, the Commission issued an order setting the matter for paper briefing in light of the concerns raised by intervenors. Initial briefs were due on or by April 5, 2021; reply briefs were due on or by May 5, 2021. On July 21, 2021, Algonquin filed a Petition for Review in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Agenda item C-2 may be an order on the paper hearing.
C-3 – Adelphia Gateway, LLC (Docket No. CP18-46-004). On August 31, 2018, Adelphia Gateway, LLC (Adelphia) filed an application for a CPCN authorizing acquisition, construction, and operation of certain pipeline facilities and for related authorizations concerning its proposed Adelphia Gateway Project. The project would convert an existing mainline and construct two new pipeline laterals in Delaware and Pennsylvania. On December 20, 2019, the Commission issued an order approving the project. On October 23, 2020, Adelphia submitted a notice of commencement of construction. Agenda item C-3 may establish a new sub-docket in the proceeding.
C-4 – Delfin LNG LLC (Docket No. CP15-490-002). On May 8, 2015, Delfin LNG LLC (Delfin) submitted an application, pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA, requesting authorization to construct and operate pipeline facilities and related equipment for the proposed offshore liquefied natural gas facility located in the Gulf of Mexico. The Commission issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) on November 28, 2016, finding that the project would not constitute a major federal action affecting the human environment contingent on implementation of mitigating measures recommended by staff. On September 28, 2017, the Commission issued an order granting the certificate for the deepwater port to be owned and operated by Delfin. On November 8, 2021, Sierra Club submitted a formal notice of violation for the purported agency failure to reinstate the Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 consultation relating to the project. Sierra Club raised the new identification of an endangered whale in 2021 located in the Gulf of Mexico in waters near the project, necessitating a stay on construction activities pending reinitiated consultation pursuant to the ESA. Agenda item C-4 may be an order on the Sierra Club filing.
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2022 White & Case LLP