Below are summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's July 15, 2021 open meeting, pursuant to the agenda issued on July 8, 2021. Items G-6 and C-1 have not been summarized due to omission.
In this issue…
- Electric Items
- Gas Items
- Hydro Items
- Certificate Items
E-1 – Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection (Docket No. RM21-17-000). Agenda item E-1 may be a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing regional transmission planning, cost allocation, and generator interconnection processes.
E-2 – Constellation Mystic Power, LLC (Docket No. ER18-1639-000). On May 16, 2018, Constellation Mystic Power, LLC (Mystic) filed, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), an executed cost-of-service agreement (the Mystic Agreement) among Mystic, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), and ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE). The agreement, entered into to ensure fuel security for the New England region, provides cost-of-service compensation to Mystic for continued operation of the Mystic 8 and 9 natural gas-fired generating units. The Mystic Agreement also includes 100 percent of the $150M in annual costs associated with the Everett Marine Terminal whose LNG is the only fuel source for Mystic 8 and 9. On July 13, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) accepted the Mystic Agreement and suspended it for a nominal period to become effective June 1, 2022, subject to refund and established settlement judge and expedited hearing procedures. On December 20, 2018, the Commission conditionally accepted the Mystic Agreement to become effective June 1, 2022. The Commission also directed a limited paper hearing to determine Mystic's ROE. Specifically, the Commission established the paper hearing to determine how to apply the ROE methodology proposed in Coakley to Mystic. On April 19, 2019, initial briefs and supporting affidavits were filed. Reply briefs and supporting affidavits were filed July 18, 2019. On May 21, 2020, the Commission issued Opinion No. 569, in which it revised its approach to determining a just and reasonable ROE. Subsequently, on July 28, 2020, the Commission issued an order reopening the record for the limited purpose of allowing the participants in the proceeding to apply the Commission's revised ROE methodology, as established in Opinion No. 569-A. Participants in the proceeding again submitted initial and reply briefs and supporting affidavits. Agenda item E-2 may be an order addressing the determination of a just and reasonable ROE for the Mystic units.
E-3 – Duquesne Light Company v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. EL20-59-000). On July 2, 2020, PJM Interconnection LLC (PJM) submitted, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA a filing, developed by stakeholders through committee, proposing to amend Schedule 6 of the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM (OA) to move the planning of all transmission facilities determined to be at their end of life, as either Supplemental Projects or FERC Form No. 715 Projects, to a new category of EOL Projects under PJM's RTEP Process. On July 30, 2020, Duquesne Light Company, LLC (Duquesne) submitted, pursuant to section 206 of the FPA, a complaint requesting that the Commission prevent PJM from submitting amendments to the OA that it has determined to be unlawful. The complaint does not address the substance of the amendments, rather it argues that PJM should not be forced to file unlawful amendments and that stakeholders with a good faith disagreement of the lawfulness of proposed amendments are not prejudiced because they are empowered to file amendments to the OA with the Commission themselves under section 205 of the FPA. Agenda item E-3 may be an order addressing the complaint.
E-4 – PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. ER20-2308-001). On July 2, 2020, PJM Interconnection LLC (PJM) submitted, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA a filing, developed by stakeholders through committee, proposing to amend Schedule 6 of the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM (OA) to move the planning of all transmission facilities determined to be at their end of life, as either Supplemental Projects or FERC Form No. 715 Projects, to a new category of EOL Projects under PJM's RTEP Process. On December 17, 2020, the Commission issued an order (December Order) rejecting the proposed amendments to the OA finding that end-of-life planning decisions fall outside of the scope of expansion planning delegated to PJM in the Consolidated Transmission Owner Agreement (CTOA). On March 16, 2021, American Municipal Power, Inc., et. al., submitted a petition for review of the December Order to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Agenda item E-4 may be an order further addressing PJM's proposed revisions to the OA or the December Order.
E-5 – Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company v. California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket No. EL21-74-000). On May 17, 2021, Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company (together NV Energy) filed, pursuant to section 206 of the FPA, a complaint opposing a California Independent System Operator (CAISO) proposal to modify the curtailment practices for transmission service over the CAISO grid through changes to penalty price parameters in the Market Operations Business Practice Manual (BPM). The proposed changes purportedly would give a CAISO Load Serving Entity's imports of Resource Adequacy Resources utilizing non-firm transmission service the same curtailment priority as a self-scheduled wheel-through imported to CAISO utilizing firm transmission service. NV Energy argues that CAISO's effort to make such changes through a BPM, rather than an amendment to the CAISO tariff, violates 1) the FPA requirement that all public utilities must file practices affecting jurisdictional rates and charges, and 2) the Commission's rule of reason policy that requires that provisions that significantly affect rates, terms, and conditions must be included in the tariff. Agenda item E-5 may be an order addressing NV Energy's complaint.
E-6 – Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket No. ER20-2878-010). On September 15, 2020, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) submitted its third Wholesale Distribution Tariff (WDT) rate case filing, proposing revisions to certain non-rate terms and conditions and revisions to rate terms. Most notably, the proposed revisions included moving to a Formula Rate with attendant individual schedules in order to calculate the Distribution Revenue Requirement (DRR) and wholesale distribution rates. On November 13, 2020, the Commission issued an order accepting the WDT filing—including the Formula Rate and associated DRR—subject to refund and establishing settlement judge procedures. On April 6, 2021, PG&E submitted an Offer of Partial Settlement purporting to resolve some, but not all, contested issues in the ongoing proceeding. PG&E asserted that the settlement was not opposed by any parties. Namely, the issues resolved in the Offer of Partial Settlement are the effective date, scope, partial settlement rates, and various protocol and model revisions, among others. Agenda item E-6 may be an order on the Offer of Partial Settlement as brought forward by PG&E.
E-7 – FirstEnergy Corp. (Docket No. EC21-77-000). On April 13, 2021, FirstEnergy Corp. (FirstEnergy), on behalf of its affiliates (collectively, Applicants), filed an Application for Authorization of Transaction under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). Applicants request Commission approval for the disposition of jurisdictional facilities resulting from a proposed transaction whereby two members of the Board of Directors at FirstEnergy recently appointed by the Icahn Group will receive voting rights commensurate with their positions. The Icahn Group currently holds, and will continue to hold, less than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of FirstEnergy. Following the transaction, the two members of the FirstEnergy Board appointed by the Icahn Group will possess voting rights on the FirstEnergy Board. Applicants seek Commission clarification "out of an abundance of caution" that these circumstances will not constitute control pursuant to Section 203 of the FPA. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the Application.
E-8 – Hecate Energy Green County 3 LLC v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation and New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. EL21-49-000). On February 11, 2021, Hecate Energy Green County 3 LLC (Hecate) filed a Complaint against Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (CH) and New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO, and collectively, Respondents). The Complaint alleged that Respondents violated the FPA and the NYISO Open Access Transmission Tariff (NYISO Tariff) by failing to use "reasonable efforts" when processing Hecate's small generator interconnection request as well as applying an "Inclusion Practice" regarding the firmness of generator interconnection requests, which Hecate states is not furnished in the provisions of the NYISO Tariff. Consequently, CH and NYISO may have erroneously concluded that certain generating facilities in New York should be assigned as System Upgrade Facilities in the Hecate project rather than applied to projects in the New York Standardized Interconnection Process. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on the Complaint as brought forward by Hecate.
E-9 – Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation District and East Columbia Basin Irrigation District (Docket No. EL21-42-000). On January 22, 2021, Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation District and East Columbia Basin Irrigation District (collectively, the Districts) submitted a Petition for Declaratory Order Regarding Jurisdiction. The petition seeks Commission affirmation under Section 211A of the FPA whereby it is confirmed that jurisdiction cannot be asserted over an unregulated transmitting utility solely as a result of the utility establishing different transmission rates by customer class or by contract. The Districts assert that such affirmation would terminate the ongoing dispute between the Districts and an unregulated transmitting utility, Public Utility No. 2 of Grant County (Grant PUD), and enable renewed contract negotiations for the transmission and distribution of federal reserved power by Grant PUD for the benefit of the Districts. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the Petition for Declaratory Order Regarding Jurisdiction as brought forward by the Districts.
E-10 – The Dayton Power and Light Company (Docket No. ER20-1068-000). On February 25, 2020, pursuant to sections 205 and 219 of the FPA, Dayton Power and Light Company (Dayton Power) submitted a request for approval of certain transmission rate incentives for investment in transmission projects that Dayton Power asserted are needed for reliability (Incentive Rate Application). Dayton Power stated that the magnitude of such costs would be financially burdensome and therefore requested Commission approval to implement the CWIP incentive which would apply to a portion of expenses already incurred. Specifically, Dayton Power asserted that, by joining a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), it should receive the incentive adder on its return on equity and the membership represents the choice that Congress intended with Section 219 of the FPA. On August 17, 2020, the Commission issued an order accepting the Incentive Rate Application in part and also rejecting the Incentive Rate Application in part. On October 16, 2020, the Commission conducted a paper hearing to evaluate the outstanding material issues in the proceeding, by which several parties filed initial briefs; reply briefs were filed on November 16, 2020. Agenda item E-10 may be an order on the eligibility of the RTO adder for Dayton Power.
E-11 – City of Alameda, California v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket No. EL20-63-000). On August 10, 2020, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, the City of Alameda, California (Alameda) submitted a petition for declaratory order and complaint against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to end a dispute concerning the interpretation of an interconnection agreement between Alameda and PG&E and an operating agreement entered into pursuant to that interconnection agreement. Agenda item E-11 may be an order on Alameda's petition for declaratory order and complaint.
E-12 – Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. (Docket No. EL21-65-000). On March 31, 2021, Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. (HCE), filed a petition for declaratory order requesting that the Commission find that HCE is entitled to treat purchases from a qualifying facility (QF) connected to the HCE system as eligible to displace capacity purchase obligations under its Power Supply Agreement with Public Service Company of Colorado (PSA), that HCE's purchase of QF energy is eligible for delivery to its loads using firm transmission service over the integrated transmission system, and that HCE is entitled under the PSA to connect QFs to the HCE system using its own interconnection procedures. Agenda item E-12 may be an order on HCE's petition for declaratory order.
G-1 – Total Gas & Power North America, Inc., Total, S.A., Total Gas & Power, Ltd., Aaron Hall and Therese Tran f/k/a/ Nguyen (Docket No. IN12-17-000). On April 28, 2016, the Commission issued an order to show cause and notice of proposed penalty directing Total Gas & Power North America, Inc. (TGPNA), Aaron Hall (Hall), and Therese Tran f/k/a Nguyen (Tran) to show cause why they should not be found to have violated section 4.A of the Natural Gas Act and section 1c.1 of the Commission's regulations through a scheme to manipulate the price of natural gas at four locations in the southwest United States between June 2009 and June 2012. The Commission also directed TGPNA to show cause why it should not be required to disgorge unjust profits of $9.18 million, plus interest, and further directed TGPNA, Hall, and Tran to show cause why they should not be assessed civil penalties in the amount of $213,600,000 for TGPNA, $1,000,000 for Hall (jointly and severally with TGPNA), and $2,000,000 for Tran (jointly and severally with TGPNA). Finally, inter alia, the Commission directed TGPNA and its affiliates to show cause why they should not be held liable for the conduct alleged in the Commission's order to show cause. Agenda item G-1 may be an order on the proposed penalties in this enforcement proceeding.
G-2 – Five-Year Review of the Oil Pipeline Index (Docket No. RM20-14-001). On December 17, 2020, the Commission issued an order related to a five-year review of the index level used to determine annual changes to oil pipeline rate ceilings (December 17 Order). The December 17 Order established an index level of Producer Price Index for Finished Goods plus 0.78% (PPI-FG+0.78%) for the five-year period commencing July 1, 2021. During January 2021, numerous entities requested rehearing and or clarification of the December 17 Order. On February 18, 2021, the Commission issued an order granting rehearing for further consideration and stated that the rehearing requests would be addressed in a future order. Agenda item G-2 may be an order on the requests for rehearing and or clarification of the December 17 Order.
G-3 – Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines (Docket No. RM96-1-042). On February 18, 2021, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing revisions to its regulations to incorporate version 3.2 business practice standards adopted by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) that are applicable to natural gas pipelines. The NOPR generally states that the NAESB revisions are intended to enhance the natural gas industry's system and software security measures and to clarify the processing of certain business transactions.
G-4 – DCP South Central Texas LLC (Docket No. RP21-741-000). On April 16, 2021, DCP South Central Texas LLC (DCP) filed a petition for limited waiver of the Commission's shipper must have title rule, prohibition against buy/sell arrangements, and other capacity release regulations to enable DCP to provide producers with take-in-kind rights via DCP's gas processing agreements. Agenda item G-4 may be an order on DCP's petition.
G-5 – Hartree Partners, LP v. Northern Natural Gas Company (Docket No. RP21-722-000). On April 7, 2021, pursuant to section 206 of the FPA, and Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Hartree Partners, LP (Hartree) filed a formal complaint against Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern Natural), alleging that the Northern Natural unlawfully seeks to recover an amount totaling $7,401,806.38 from Hartree for quantities that Northern Natural allocated or curtailed during the extreme winter weather event in Texas and other parts of the south central United States in February 2021. Agenda item G-5 may be an order regarding Hartree's complaint.
G-6 – Omitted
G-7 – Alliance Pipeline L.P. (Docket No. RP20-908-003). On May 29, 2020, Alliance Pipeline L.P. (Alliance) filed revised tariff records pursuant to section 4 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). On June 29, 2020, the Commission issued an order accepting and suspending Alliance's revised tariff records to become effective December 1, 2020, subject to refund pending the outcome of a hearing. On March 31, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation with the presiding administrative law judge indicating that they had reached a settlement resolving all issues set for hearing in the June 29, 2020 Commission order. On May 5, 2021, the presiding administrative law judge issued an order certifying the settlement as uncontested. Agenda item G-7 may be an order on the uncontested settlement.
H-1 – Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Docket No. P-405-129). On March 21, 2021, the Commission issued an order issuing a new 50-year license to Exelon Generating Company, LLC (Exelon) for the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project No. 405. On April 19, 2021, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. filed a request for rehearing of the Commission's March 21 order. Agenda item H-1 may be an order on the request for rehearing.
H-2 – Removing Profile Drawing Requirement for Qualifying Conduit Notices of Intent and Revising Filing Requirements for Major Hydroelectric Projects 10 MW or Less (Docket No. RM20-21-000). On February 18, 2021, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to amend Parts 4 and 5 of its regulations governing the filing requirements for qualifying conduits and certain major hydroelectric power projects. Agenda item H-2 may be an order on the proposed rulemaking.
H-3 – Northern States Power Company - Wisconsin (Docket No. P-2444-028). On December 8, 2017, and supplemented January 12, 2018, Northern States Power Company (Licensee), licensee for the White River Project No. 2444, filed a request to continue the temporary amendment of its Reservoir Operating Plan (Plan), originally granted on August 1, 2016. On March 1, 2018, the Commission issued an order extending the temporary amendment period. Amongst other things, the March 1, 2018 order requires the Licensee to file a report summarizing an annual meeting with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Agenda item H-3 may be an order relating to the Commission's March 1, 2018 order extending the temporary amendment plan.
C-1 – Omitted
C-2 – New Fortress Energy LLC (Docket No. CP20-466-001). On March 19, 2021, the Commission issued an Order on Show Cause finding that the New Fortress Energy LLC (New Fortress) facility located at the Port of San Juan is subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under section 3 of the NGA. On April 19, 2021, New Fortress filed a request for rehearing of the Commission's March 19 order. Agenda item C-2 may be an order relating to New Fortress's request for rehearing.
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.
© 2021 White & Case LLP