Publications & Events
Alert

Summary of FERC Meeting Agenda for October 2021

Below are summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's October 21, 2021 open meeting, pursuant to the agenda issued on October 14, 2021. Items E-2 and E-4 have not been summarized due to omission.

In this issue…

  • Electric Items
  • Gas Items
  • Hydro Items
  • Certificate Items

 

Electric

E-1 – Omitted

E-2 – Phillips 66 Company (Docket No. ER21-2283-000). On June 30, 2021, Phillips 66 Company (Phillips 66) filed a proposed amendment to its market-based rate schedule pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). In the filing, Phillips 66 seeks approval to remove affiliate restrictions from its rate schedule, citing a lack of necessity from this point forward due to the impending implementation of Order No. 860 and that Berkshire Hathaway Inc. has notified Phillips 66 it no longer has a ten percent or greater interest in the company and, therefore, does not treat Phillips 66 as an affiliate. On August 24, 2021, Phillips 66 submitted an amendment to the June 30 filing, namely furnishing information to confirm that it lacks horizontal market power in the balancing authority areas (BAAs) relevant to the proposed revisions. Agenda item E-2 may be an order on the proposed amendment to the market-based rate schedule of Phillips 66.

E-3 – CPRE 1 Lessee, LLC (Docket No. ER21-2426-000). On July 14, 2021, CPRE 1 Lessee, LLC (CPRE) filed an application for authorization of limited market-based wholesale sales of capacity and energy per the proposed market-based rate tariff, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, Rules 204 and 205 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission, and Part 35 of the regulations of the Commission. CPRE stated that, following Commission authorization to Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) in 2019 to make market-based rate sales to three companies through the mandated competitive procurement of renewable energy generation established by the North Carolina state legislature, it seeks limited market-based rate authority to make power sales to an affiliate and to overcome the existing geographic prohibition on Duke affiliates from making sales in the Duke BAA. In the filing, CPRE requested that the three companies be granted the same limited market-based rate authority, as the project developers will enter into a series of transactions that will create another unregulated affiliate but will not alter the terms and conditions of the existing power purchase agreements (PPAs) in any material way. On August 24, 2021, CPRE submitted additional information, namely the underlying PPAs held by the three companies that will be assigned to CPRE following consummation of the transaction. Agenda item E-3 may be an order on the market-based rate authority application by CPRE.

E-4 – Omitted

E-5 – Athens Utilities Board, Gibson Electric Membership Corporation, Joe Wheeler Electric Membership Corporation and Volunteer Energy Cooperative v. Tennessee Valley Authority (Docket Nos. EL21-40-000; TX21-1-000). On January 11, 2021, Athens Utilities Board, Gibson Electric Membership Corporation, Joe Wheeler Electric Membership Corporation and Volunteer Energy Cooperative (collectively, Petitioners) filed a complaint and petition for order against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), pursuant to sections 210, 211A, 306, 307, 308, and 309 of the FPA and Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission. In the filing, Petitioners seek Commission action directing TVA to provide unbundled transmission service to Petitioners seeking to serve their load, as local power companies (LPCs), respectively, at rates and on terms and conditions comparable to TVA offers and to formalize interconnection arrangements and provide interconnection service to Petitioners upon the termination of existing full-requirements power supply contracts with TVA. Among a number of protests and substantive comments opposing the complaint, TVA filed a protest, answer, and motion to intervene on February 22, 2021. TVA asserted that the Commission lacks the statutory authority to grant the relief sought by Petitioners due to TVA existing as a federal agency required to balance the economic and energy considerations of the Tennessee Valley region. TVA stated that section 211A of the FPA authorizes the Commission to regulate rates, terms and conditions of transmission service that the TVA Board has already decided to provide, but does not authorize the Commission to require TVA to offer expanded transmission service. According to TVA, Congress gave the TVA Board (and not the Commission) authority to resolve the fundamental question whether to offer wheeling transmission service to LPCs. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the complaint as raised by Petitioners or setting the matter for hearing and further judgment.

E-6 – Southern California Edison Company (Docket No. ER19-2505-004; ER19-2505-006). On July 13, 2021, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) filed an explanatory statement furnishing details regarding the offer of settlement purporting to resolve all issues in the ongoing proceedings related to its Wholesale Distribution Access Tariff (WDAT). SCE proposed amendments to the existing WDAT on March 30, 2018, whereby it would include inbound Charging Distribution Service (CDS) for storage resources (as-available only, not firm). The Commission ultimately rejected this proposal and directed SCE to provide storage resources the ability to obtain CDS with the same curtailment priority as other wholesale loads. Accordingly, SCE filed amendments to the WDAT CDS provisions on July 31, 2019 where it would offer as-available and firm services. On January 24, 2020, the Commission issued an order accepting the proposed revisions and established settlement judge procedures. On January 6, 2021, the parties involved reached a settlement in principle, and on March 8, 2021, the parties jointly submitted a motion to place certain rates, terms, and conditions of the settlement into effect on an interim basis. The presiding Chief Judge approved the motion on March 16, 2021. On August 24, 2021, the settlement judge issued a certification of uncontested settlement and terminated settlement judge procedures on August 30, 2021. Agenda item E-6 may be an order on the settlement as brought forward by SCE.

E-7 – Calpine Energy Services, L.P.; Bethpage Energy Center 3, LLC; Calpine Bethlehem, LLC; Calpine Construction Finance Co., L.P.; Calpine Energy Solutions, LLC; Calpine Fore River Energy Center, LLC; Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation, LLC; Calpine Mid-Atlantic Marketing, LLC; Calpine Mid Merit, LLC; Calpine Mid Merit II, LLC; Calpine New Jersey Generation, LLC; Calpine Northeast Development, LLC; Calpine PowerAmerica – CA, LLC; Calpine Vineland Solar, LLC; CES Marketing IX, LLC; CES Marketing X, LLC; Champion Energy, LLC; Champion Energy Marketing LLC; Champion Energy Services, LLC; CPN Bethpage 3rd Turbine, Inc.; Granite Ridge Energy, LLC; KIAC Partners; Nissequogue Cogen Partners; North American Power and Gas, LLC; North American Power Business, LLC; Power Contract Financing, L.L.C.; TBG Cogen Partners; Westbrook Energy Center, LLC; Zion Energy LLC (Docket Nos. ER10-2042-035; ER10-1944-008; ER10-2051-010; ER10-1942-027; ER17-696-015; ER14-2931-008; ER10-2043-010; ER10-2029-012; ER10-2041-010; ER18-1321-003; ER10-2040-010; ER20-1939-001; ER10-1938-030; ER10-2036-011; ER10-1934-029; ER10-1893-029; ER10-3051-034; ER10-2985-033; ER10-3049-034; ER10-1889-008; ER10-3260-010; ER10-1895-008; ER10-1870-008; ER11-4369-014; ER16-2218-014; ER10-1862-029; ER10-1858-008; ER13-1401-008; ER10-2044-010). On June 30, 2020, the above-captioned entities (collectively, Calpine and affiliates) submitted the triennial market power update for the Northeast region, pursuant to Section 35.37(a)(1) of the regulations of the Commission. Each entity is either a power marketer authorized to make sales in the Northeast region or owns and controls generation in the Northeast region with market based rate authority. In the filing, Calpine and affiliates assert a lack of horizontal or vertical market power and therefore remain in compliance with requirements for market-based rate authorization. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the triennial market power update by Calpine and affiliates.

E-8 – Panda Stonewall LLC (Docket No. ER17-1821-006). On June 3, 2021, Panda Stonewall LLC (Panda Stonewall) filed an informational filing regarding the planned transfer of upstream ownership of the Panda Stonewall natural gas generating facility. In the filing, Panda Stonewall explains that no change is proposed to any reactive services rates, tariff, or services as outlined in the provisions of the existing Schedule 2 tariff in the PJM Interconnection (PJM) BAA. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on the informational filing by Panda Stonewall.

E-9 – Battery Utility of Ohio, LLC (Docket No. ER13-1667-005). On September 14, 2020, Battery Utility of Ohio, LLC (BUO) submitted the triennial market power update for the Northeast region, pursuant to Section 35.37(a)(1) of the regulations of the Commission. In the filing, BUO asserted that it continues to meet the requirements for market-based rate authorization and lacks horizontal and vertical market power. On September 22, 2020, the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) for PJM Interconnection (PJM) filed a limited protest to the BUO triennial submission, recommending that the Commission initiate a section 206 proceeding in order to investigate broader issues with PJM market power mitigation rules and lift existing restrictions on individual market based rate authorizations. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the triennial market power update by BUO or on the limited protest by the IMM.

E-10 – Alabama Electric Marketing, LLC; Berkshire Power Company, LLC; California Electric Marketing, LLC; LQA, LLC; New Mexico Electric Marketing, LLC; Tenaska Energia de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.; Tenaska Pennsylvania Partners, LLC; Tenaska Power Management, LLC; Tenaska Power Services Co.; Tenaska Virginia Partners, L.P.; Texas Electric Marketing, LLC (Docket Nos. ER10-1585-016; ER10-2480-011; ER10-1594-016; ER16-733-007; ER10-1617-016; ER16-1148-007; ER18-1960-003; ER12-60-018; ER10-1632-018; ER10-1626-012; ER10-1628-016). On June 30, 2020, the above-captioned entities (collectively, Tenaska and affiliates) submitted the triennial market power update for the Northeast region, pursuant to Section 35.37(a)(1) of the regulations of the Commission. Each entity is either a power marketer authorized to make sales in the Northeast region or owns and controls generation in the Northeast region with market based rate authority. In the filing, Tenaska and affiliates assert a lack of horizontal or vertical market power and therefore remain in compliance with requirements for market-based rate authorization. Agenda item E-10 may be an order on the triennial market power update by Tenaska and affiliates.

E-11 – California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket No. ER21-2718-000). On August 13, 2021, California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) submitted a petition for approval of an uncontested settlement agreement between itself, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), and Southern California Edison Company (SCE) (collectively, the Applicants). In the filing, Applicants resolve outstanding issues presented in petitions for review brought by Shell Energy North America (Shell Energy) pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The settlement agreement proffered and agreed to by Applicants relates to litigation concerning a provision in the CAISO tariff where proposed revisions would alter the methodology for allocating costs related to the must-offer obligation under tariff rules. Principally, if the uncontested settlement is certified by the Commission, CAISO would issue Recalculation Settlement Statements to PG&E, SCE, and Shell Energy. Agenda item E-11 may be an order on the petition for approval of the uncontested settlement.

E-12 – Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc.; Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Company Inc.; Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P.; Wheelabrator North Andover Inc.; Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P.; Wheelabrator Baltimore, L.P.; Wheelabrator Falls Inc.; Wheelabrator Saugus Inc.; Wheelabrator Millbury Inc.; Wheelabrator Concord Company, L.P. (Docket Nos. ER10-3230-011; ER10-3237-011; ER10-3239-011; ER10-3240-011; ER10-3253-011; ER13-1485-011; ER14-1777-010; ER15-2722-007; ER18-1310-002; ER19-461-002). On June 30, 2020, the above-captioned entities (collectively, Wheelabrator Sellers) submitted the triennial market power update for the Northeast region, pursuant to Section 35.37(a)(1) of the regulations of the Commission. Each entity owns and controls generation in the Northeast region with market based rate authority. In the filing, Wheelabrator Sellers assert a lack of horizontal or vertical market power and therefore remain in compliance with requirements for market-based rate authorization. Agenda item E-12 may be an order on the triennial market power update by Wheelabrator Sellers.

E-13 – Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. ER21-530-001). On August 5, 2021, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), along with MidAmerican Energy Company, Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc., the MISO Transmission Owners, and the Michigan Public Service Commission (collectively, Settling Parties) submitted a settlement agreement and offer of settlement. Settling Parties request Commission approval of the settlement, which would resolve all issues set for evidentiary hearing and settlement judge procedures as ordered by the Commission on January 29, 2021. The material issues at hand in this proceeding pertain to the lengthy process of integrating the Entergy Operating Companies into MISO in 2013, and the cost allocation methodology that enabled MISO to use certain portions of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) transmission system. On December 1, 2020, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), MISO filed revisions to Schedule 49 of the MISO tariff to establish a cost allocation methodology within MISO the costs that it incurred under the existing settlement agreement with SPP beginning on February 1, 2021. The December 1 filing stated that the proposed Revised Schedule 49 would allow MISO and its stakeholders sufficient time to develop a longer-term cost allocation mechanism to allocate the cost of the MISO/SPP/Joint Parties Settlement Agreement within MISO beginning on February 1, 2022. Settling Parties state that the settlement agreement and offer of settlement would resolve the issues set for hearing procedures and render them moot. On September 10, 2021, the Commission issued a certification of uncontested offer of settlement; soon thereafter on September 13, 2021, the Chief Judge issued an order terminating settlement judge procedures. Agenda item E-13 may be an order on the settlement agreement and the proposed revisions to the MISO tariff in order to resolve the material issues in the proceeding.

E-14 – Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc.; MS Solar Solutions Corp.; Morgan Stanley Energy Structuring, L.L.C.; TAQA Gen X LLC; Red Oak Power, LLC; Bayonne Energy Center, LLC; Zone J Tolling Co., LLC; NaturEner Montana Wind Energy, LLC; NaturEner Power Watch, LLC; NaturEner Wind Watch, LLC (Docket Nos. ER10-2906-014; ER10-2908-014; ER19-1716-002; ER11-4393-008; ER14-477-002; ER11-3460-012; ER12-1301-010; ER11-4669-007; ER11-4670-007; ER12-709-006). On June 30, 2020, the Morgan Stanley Public Utilities, the NaturEner Public Utilities, and the TigerGenCo Public Utilities (collectively, Sellers) submitted the triennial market power update for the Northeast region, pursuant to Section 35.37(a)(1) of the regulations of the Commission. In the filing, Sellers assert that its multiple entities continue to meet the requirements for market-based rate authorization and lack horizontal and vertical market power. On August 31, 2020, the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) for PJM Interconnection (PJM) filed a limited protest to the Sellers triennial submission, recommending that the Commission initiate a section 206 proceeding in order to investigate broader issues with PJM market power mitigation rules and lift existing restrictions on individual market based rate authorizations. Agenda item E-14 may be an order on the triennial market power update by Sellers or on the limited protest by the IMM.

E-15 – Startrans IO, L.L.C. (Docket No. ER21-263-001). On June 2, 2021, Startrans IO (Startrans) submitted an offer of settlement seeking Commission approval and resolving all issues in the proceeding without the need for an evidentiary hearing or further proceedings. The proceeding concerns the proposal by Startrans to reduce its Base Transmission Revenue Requirement (TRR) associated with its interests in the Mead-Adelanto Project and Mead-Phoenix Project. On August 6, 2021, the Commission issued a certification of uncontested offer of settlement; soon thereafter on August 23, 2021, the Chief Judge issued an order terminating settlement judge procedures. Agenda item E-15 may be an order on the settlement agreement and the proposed revisions to the Startrans TRR in order to resolve the material issues in the proceeding.

E-16 – Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket No. ER21-2305-000). On June 30, 2021, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) submitted an offer of settlement seeking Commission approval and resolving all issues in the proceeding. The settlement stems from an initial filing in another docket where PG&E proposed an allocation methodology to be used in its Transmission Owner Tariff Formula Rate for Standby Customers. The Commission issued an order accepting the proposed rate methodology, subject to refund and established settlement judge procedures. On August 2, 2021, the Commission issued a certification of uncontested offer of settlement; soon thereafter on August 19, 2021, the Chief Judge issued an order terminating settlement judge procedures. Agenda item E-16 may be an order on the settlement agreement and the proposed revisions to the PG&E standby cost allocation methodology.

E-17 – Panda Stonewall LLC (Docket No. EC21-99-000). On June 3, 2021, Panda Stonewall LLC (Panda Stonewall) submitted an application for authorization pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). Panda Stonewall seeks approval of a transaction whereby ARCC Green Energy Partners Blocker, LLC will acquire 100 percent of the voting ownership interests in Panda Stonewall from Panda Stonewall Super Holdings LLC and Siemens Financial Services, Inc. Notably, Panda Stonewall owns and operates a generating facility in the PJM footprint, of which the Reactive Rate Schedule is presently the subject of a separate proceeding where the Commission is contemplating a formal protest as to potentially excessive annual revenue requirement for reactive service. On October 4, 2021, Panda Stonewall submitted a request seeking issuance of an order from the Commission, stating that a delay could pose economic harm and interrupt existing commitments, as well as reiterating that the protest in the separate proceeding has not been mirrored in this docket. Agenda item E-17 may be an order on the section 203 application by Panda Stonewall.

E-18 – City of Alameda, California v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket No. EL20-63-001). On August 10, 2020, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 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. On July 15, 2021, the Commission issued an order granting in part and denying in part the petition for declaratory order and denying the complaint; in the order, the operating agreement petition was denied, however, the interconnection agreement petition was granted. On August 16, 2021, Alameda and PG&E filed respective requests for rehearing of the July 15 order, each asserting that the Commission had not incorporated a recent ruling by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) into its evaluation of the matter. Specifically, CPUC dismissed the procurement component of the PG&E project at hand and, consequently, the reliability concerns raised by Alameda have been eliminated as the existing generating facility will continue to operate due an extension of its reliability must run contracts. Agenda item E-18 may be an order on the respective requests for rehearing and clarification as brought forward by Alameda and PG&E.

 

Gas

G-1 – ConocoPhillips Company, Direct Energy Business Marketing, LLC, Exelon Corporation, and NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP (Docket No. RP21-751-000); Spire Marketing Inc. v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP (Docket No. RP21-813-000). On April 30, 2021, Spire Marketing Inc. (Spire) filed concurrent complaints, pursuant to Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission, against Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP (Panhandle). In the complaints, Spire stated that during the winter storm in February of 2021 affecting the states of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, Panhandle unjustly did not waive penalties during the last three of the four days of system impact and contravened the Operational Flow Order (OFO) provisions of its Tariff. Panhandle issued a notice of OFO limiting certain transportation of natural gas supply on it system on the first evening of disruption. Additionally, Spire requests that the Commission retroactively waive the penalties collected from shippers during the OFO period. Agenda item G-1 may be an order on the complaints as raised by Spire against Panhandle.

G-2 – Coalition for Fair Fuel Rates v. Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Docket No. RP21-829-000). On May 17, 2021, Marubeni Natural Gas and LNG America Corp., Mitsui & Co. Cameron LNG Sales LLC, Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC, and Total Gas & Power North America, Inc. (collectively, the Coalition for Fair Fuel Rates or CFFR) filed a complaint, pursuant to Section 5 of the NGA and Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission, against Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf). In the complaint, CFFR alleges that Columbia Gulf has significantly increased its Market Zone-Mainline fuel retainage rates over the past several years and, therefore, new issues in the fuel assessment methodology and cost responsibility are not being satisfied. Agenda item G-2 may be an order on the complaint as raised by CFFR against Columbia Gulf.

 

Hydro

Due to technical issues accessing docket information, we were unable to summarize the agenda items in the Hydro section (H-1 – H-6) for this open meeting.

 

Certificates

C-1 – Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (Docket No. CP19-514-000). On September 27, 2019, Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (CCL) filed an application, pursuant to section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for a limited amendment to authorization granted in a prior docket related to the Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project. In the filing, CCL petitions the Commission to approve an increase in the total production capacity of liquefied natural gas (LNG) of the Project. On February 28, 2020, the Commission issued the Environmental Assessment for the proposed amendment to the Project, finding that approval would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Agenda item C-1 may be an order on the limited amendment to the Project as brought forward by CCL.

C-2 – Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (Docket No. CP19-515-000). On September 27, 2019, Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (collectively, Sabine Pass) filed an application, pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, for a limited amendment to authorization granted in a prior docket related to the Sabine Pass Liquefaction Project. In the filing, Sabine Pass petitions the Commission to approve an increase in the total production capacity of LNG of the Project. On February 28, 2020, the Commission issued the Environmental Assessment for the proposed amendment to the Project, finding that approval would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Agenda item C-2 may be an order on the limited amendment to the Project as brought forward by Sabine Pass.

C-3 – Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation (Docket No. CP21-486-000). On August 19, 2021, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation (NSPM) filed a petition for declaratory order regarding jurisdictional status and request for expedited action related to the prospective acquisition of certain natural gas supply assets. In the filing, NSPM requests that the Commission clarify its standing as a natural gas local distribution company exempt from Commission jurisdiction pursuant to the NGA and the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. NSPM states that the proposed transaction would acquire supply facilities from an interstate natural gas pipeline company which would abandon by sale under the existing automatic blanket certificate possessed by the seller. The facilities would then be incorporated into the local distribution system network of NSPM and therefore used solely for non-jurisdictional activity of providing natural gas service to local distribution company customers. Agenda item C-3 may be an order on the petition as brought forward by NSPM.

C-4 – Northwest Pipeline LLC (Docket No. CP15-8-000). On October 27, 2014, Northwest Pipeline LLC (Northwest) filed an application, pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA and Subpart A of Part 157 of the Regulations of the Commission, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) authorizing the construction and operation of the proposed Kalama Lateral Project. Northwest states that the Project would consist of 3.1 miles of new pipeline and related facilities in order to connect to a proposed methanol production plant located in Cowlitz County, Washington. A number of federal agencies with jurisdiction over various components of the Project filed scoping comments and requests for information in the ensuing months. On July 13, 2015, the Commission issued the Environmental Assessment for the Project, finding that, with appropriate mitigating measures as recommended by staff, approval would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On April 11, 2016, the Commission issued an order granting the CPCN; subsequently, Northwest filed a notice of acceptance of the CPCN on April 19, 2016. Several intervening parties filed comments in opposition or requests to stay the CPCN, none of which were granted by the Commission. On August 20, 2021, Northwest filed a motion to vacate the CPCN authorization, citing that the purported sole customer of the Project had announced on June 11, 2021 the termination of the lease agreement with the Port of Kalama. Therefore, Northwest indicated there is uncertainty as to the future economic viability of the Project. Agenda item C-4 may be an order on the request to vacate CPCN authorization of the Kalama Lateral Project by Northwest.

 

Search for more Summaries of FERC Meeting Agendas.

 

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2021 White & Case LLP