Below are summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's April 21, 2022 open meeting, pursuant to the sunshine notice released on April 14, 2022.
In this issue…
- Electric Items
- Gas Items
- Hydro Items
- Certificate Items
Electric
E-1 – Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection (Docket No. RM21-17-000). On July 15, 2021, the Commission issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR), pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), in order to determine the potential need for reforms or revisions to existing regulations relating to electric regional transmission planning and cost allocation as well as generator interconnection processes. The ANOPR stated that, to accommodate an evolving electric generation fleet that is shifting from resources proximate to load centers to new renewable resources located further away, more holistic transmission planning may be required to ensure that rates remain just and reasonable while maintaining overall grid reliability. Specifically, the Commission seeks to build on transmission reforms effectuated in Order Nos. 890 and 1000, and also raises the prospect of introducing new elements such as the creation of an Independent Transmission Monitor. Dozens of comments were filed by the deadline of October 12, 2021, ranging from utilities to industry groups to regional grid operators. For instance, PJM Interconnection LLC (PJM) submitted comments asserting that most of its new resources are not indeed located far from demand clusters, the planning process is not necessarily siloed, and that the ANOPR would not supersede its own ongoing efforts to reform the interconnection queue process. The Commission convened a Technical Conference on November 15, 2021 and solicited reply comments by November 30, 2021. Agenda item E-1 may be an order furnishing the issuance of a Final Rule stemming from the formal record established after issuance of the ANOPR and accounting for relevant stakeholder input.
E-2 – Modernizing Wholesale Electricity Market Design (Docket No. AD21-10-000). On February 18, 2021, the Commission issued a Notice of Technical Conference relating to resource adequacy in the evolving electricity sector, including but not limited to the role of capacity market constructs in an environment where state-level policies increasingly affect resource entry and exit. The Commission convened a Technical Conference on March 24, 2021 and solicited reply comments by April 26, 2021. Many parties filed comments responsive to the proposed PJM expanded minimum offer price rule (Expanded MOPR), commonly stating that the Expanded MOPR may subvert the intent of certain states to adopt new renewable energy resources and distort the operations of PJM capacity markets. Commenters generally raised that the evolving resource mix will impact how regional grid operators perform their respective planning, operations, and markets functions, and that a longer-term approach would likely yield more favorable outcomes for resource adequacy. The Commission convened a second Technical Conference on May 25, 2021 and requested comments by July 19, 2021, and a final Technical Conference was convened on October 12, 2021 with comments due by February 4, 2022. Agenda item E-2 may be an order initiating a rulemaking proceeding following the discussions from the three Technical Conferences.
E-3 – Tenaska Power Services Co. (Docket No. ER21-42-000). On October 7, 2020, Tenaska Power Services Co. (Tenaska) submitted a filing regarding its spot sales in the Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC) region outside the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO). The filing pertains to spot sales at prices exceeding the soft cap of $1,000/MWh during August 2020 and is pursuant to an order issued by the Commission on October 8, 2020. Tenaska asserted that the prices for the sales are justified by the costs incurred and extreme weather conditions, and that due to the prevailing market conditions at the time, refunds would not be warranted. On June 17, 2021, the Commission issued an order providing guidance that justification for sales above the $1,000/MWh soft price cap may be based on demonstrations from at least one of three frameworks: 1) a production cost-based framework; 2) an index-based framework; and 3) an opportunity cost-based framework. On July 19, 2021, Tenaska submitted their supplement to the cost justification filing. Agenda item E-3 may be an order on the cost justification filing and supplement filing by Tenaska.
E-4 – bp Energy Company (Docket Nos. ER21-51-000, ER21-51-001, ER21-51-002). Mesquite Power, LLC (Docket Nos. ER21-55-000, ER21-55-001). On October 7, 2020, bp Energy Company (bp) submitted a filing regarding its spot sales in the WECC region outside the CAISO. The filing pertains to spot sales at prices exceeding the soft cap of $1,000/MWh during August 2020 and is pursuant to an order issued by the Commission on October 8, 2010. bp asserted that the prices for the sales are justified by the costs incurred and extreme weather conditions, and that due to the prevailing market conditions at the time, refunds would not be warranted. On June 17, 2021, the Commission issued an order providing guidance that justification for sales above the $1,000/MWh soft price cap may be based on demonstrations from at least one of three frameworks: 1) a production cost-based framework; 2) an index-based framework; and 3) an opportunity cost-based framework. On August 24, 2021, bp filed an Answer to Protests submitted earlier in the proceeding, stating that they did not address specific material concerns and do not challenge bp's compliance with the guidance order issued by the Commission. Agenda item E-4 may be an order on the cost justification filing by bp.
E-5 – Tucson Electric Power Company (Docket No. ER21-47-000). On October 7, 2020, Tucson Electric Company (TEP) submitted a filing regarding its spot sales in the WECC region outside the CAISO. The filing pertains to spot sales at prices exceeding the soft cap of $1,000/MWh during August 2020 and is pursuant to an order issued by the Commission on October 8, 2020. TEP asserted that the prices for the sales are justified by the costs incurred and extreme weather conditions, and that due to the prevailing market conditions at the time, refunds would not be warranted. On June 17, 2021, the Commission issued an order providing guidance that justification for sales above the $1,000/MWh soft price cap may be based on demonstrations from at least one of three frameworks: 1) a production cost-based framework; 2) an index-based framework; and 3) an opportunity cost-based framework. On August 23, 2021, TEP filed an Answer to Protests submitted earlier in the proceeding, stating that they did not address specific material concerns and do not challenge TEP's compliance with the guidance order issued by the Commission. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the cost justification filing by TEP.
E-6 – Mercuria Energy America, LLC (Docket No. ER21-46-000). On October 7, 2020, Mercuria Energy America, LLC (Mercuria) submitted a filing regarding its spot sales in the WECC region outside the CAISO. The filing pertains to spot sales at prices exceeding the soft cap of $1,000/MWh during August 2020 and is pursuant to an order issued by the Commission on October 8, 2020. Mercuria asserted that the prices for the sales are justified by the costs incurred and extreme weather conditions, and that due to the prevailing market conditions at the time, refunds would not be warranted. On June 17, 2021, the Commission issued an order providing guidance that justification for sales above the $1,000/MWh soft price cap may be based on demonstrations from at least one of three frameworks: 1) a production cost-based framework; 2) an index-based framework; and 3) an opportunity cost-based framework. Agenda item E-6 may be an order on the cost justification filing by Mercuria.
E-7 – Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. (Docket Nos. ER21-57-000, ER21-57-001). On October 7, 2020, Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. (Shell Energy) submitted a compliance filing regarding certain bilateral sales made over two days, August 18 and 19, 2020 at prices in excess of the $1,000/MWh soft cap applicable to Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) spot market sales. On October 28, 2020, Southern California Edition Company (SCE) filed a Protest and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Department of Market Monitoring of CAISO, and Public Citizen, Inc., each filed separate comments. On November 12, 2020, Shell Energy filed a Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer to Comments and Protest, arguing that the Commission should reject the arguments raised by the intervenors, deny the request for consolidation, and accept for filing Shell Energy's justification. On July 19, 2021, Shell Energy filed a supplement to its October 7, 2020 justification of its reported sales over the soft cap. This supplement was filed pursuant to a Commission order, which provided guidance on different frameworks that sellers can use to justify sales in excess of the WECC soft cap and authorized sellers to supplement or amend existing filings (Shell Energy Supplement). On August 6, SCE and PG&E filed a protest to the Shell Energy Supplement. On August 23, 2021, Shell Energy filed its Motion for Leave to Answer and asked the Commission reject the arguments raised by SCE, PG&E, and SRP, and deny the requests that Shell Energy's sales in excess of the soft cap be mitigated or that the Shell Energy Supplement be rejected. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the Shell Energy Supplement.
E-8 – Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER21-2818-001; EL22-4-001) (consolidated). On December 14, 2021, United Power, Inc. (United Power) filed a Notice of Intent to Withdraw from Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State) pursuant to the currently effective Rate Schedule No. 281. United Power's ultimate withdrawal is contingent on its payment of the applicable Contract Termination Payment (CTP), which is currently pending resolution in hearing procedures ER21-2818-000 and EL22-4-000. United Power concurrently submitted a limited request for clarification confirming its understanding of Tri-State's Tariff. The requested clarification involved a limited aspect of the Commission's Order Accepting and Suspending Proposed Tariff Revisions, Instituting Section 206 Proceeding, Establishing Refund Effective Date, and Establishing Hearing Procedures, issued October 29, 2021 in Docket Nos. ER21-2818-000 and EL22-4-000. United Power requested expedited treatment and limited clarification in order to facilitate an efficient and orderly process for members to withdraw from Tri-State and transition to Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) service. United Power sought a limited clarification that members may initiate the two-year advance notice period of intent to withdraw from Tri-State under the currently effective Tariff, subject to the Tri-State member owners' final determination as to whether it will pay the ultimate Commission approved CTP. On December 17, 2021 Tri-State filed a Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer stating that permitting conditional notices of intent to withdraw creates an untenable situation and creating substantial problems if required. United Power responded on December 21, 2021 and in response Tri-State filed a Motion to Leave to Answer and Answer on January 4, 2022. The next day, on January 5, 2022 United Power filed a Motion to Lodge and Motion for Leave to Answer, and Limited Answer. Tri-State filed a Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer in response on January 12, 2022. Item E-8 may be an order on the limited request for clarification regarding Tri-State's tariff.
E-9 – California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket No. ER20-1075-002). On May 29, 2020, the Commission issued an Order Accepting California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) tariff revisions modifying certain aspects of its capacity procurement mechanism (CPM). The Commission's order accepted CAISO's preferred approach for determining CPM compensation for resources with cost offers above the soft offer cap. Under the preferred approach, CAISO permits resources to submit a bid above the soft offer cap up to a level that reflects their going-forward fixed costs plus an adder equal to 20 percent of those going-forward costs. Commissioner Glick filed a separate dissent arguing that CAISO had not demonstrated the preferred approach was just and reasonable, and that its proposed back-up option was in fact just and reasonable. On June 29, 2020 both Calpine Corporation the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) filed requests for rehearing. On July 30, 2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law. On October 20, 2020, the CPUC filed a Petition for Review of both the March 29, 2020 Order accepting the CAISO tariff revisions and the July 30, 2020 Denial of Rehearing in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The sub-docket listed in the agenda has not be populated or initiated. Agenda item E-9 may be order related to the CPUC's petition for review.
E-10 – PacifiCorp (Docket No. EL22-38-000). The record in Docket No. EL22-38-000 has not yet been populated or initiated in eLibrary. Agenda item E-10 may be an action that is being taken sua sponte by the Commission.
E-11 – Idaho Power Company (Docket No. EL22-37-000). The record in Docket No. EL22-37-000 has not yet been populated or initiated in eLibrary. Agenda item E-11 may be an action that is being taken sua sponte by the Commission.
E-12 – Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (Docket No. EL22-41-000). The record in Docket No. EL22-41-000 has not yet been populated or initiated in eLibrary. Agenda item E-12 may be an action that is being taken sua sponte by the Commission.
E-13 – Public Service Company of New Mexico (Docket No. EL22-40-000). The record in Docket No. EL22-40-000 has not yet been populated or initiated in eLibrary. Agenda item E-13 may be an action that is being taken sua sponte by the Commission.
E-14 – Public Service Company of Colorado (Docket No. EL22-39-000). The record in Docket No. EL22-39-000 has not yet been populated or initiated in eLibrary. Agenda item E-14 may be an action that is being taken sua sponte by the Commission.
E-15 – FirstEnergy Corp. (Docket No. EC22-27-000). On December 22, 2021, FirstEnergy Corp. (FirstEnergy), on behalf of its jurisdictional subsidiaries filed an application out of an abundance for authorization pursuant to Section 203(a)(1) of the FPA for a proposed transaction whereby a newly appointed member of FirstEnergy's Board of Directors representing the interests of BIP Securities II-B L.P., which had recently acquired approximately five percent of FirstEnergy's common stock in a private placement transaction, will be authorized to vote at FirstEnergy board and board committee meetings. On January 26, 2022, Public Citizen, Inc. filed a Motion to Consolidate and Protest, arguing that Icahn Group and BIP Securities II-B L.P. should be considered affiliates as defined by 18 C.F.R. § 35.36(a)(9)(iii) and to consolidate these proceedings with Docket No. EC22-33-000 (Item-E16 on the Agenda). On February 10, 2022, FirstEnergy and BIP Securities II-B L.P. filed a Joint Answer stating that Public Citizen's argument lacks merit and should be dismissed. Additionally, FirstEnergy Transmission, LLC filed an Answer stating that Public Citizen's allegations are unfounded, with no basis in fact and are entirely irrelevant to the section 203 application before the Commission in Docket No. EC22-33-000 (described below in agenda item E-16) and as such the Protest should be dismissed. Agenda item E-15 may be an order on FirstEnergy's Section 203(a)(1) Application.
E-16 – FirstEnergy Transmission, LLC, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company, Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC, and North American Transmission Company II LLC (Docket No. EC22-33-000). On January 5, 2022 FirstEnergy Transmission, LLC (FET) submitted Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203(a)(1) and 203(a)(2) of the FPA on behalf of its public utility transmission subsidiaries for the authorization for a proposed transaction whereby North American Transmission Company II LLC will acquire 19.9% minority interest in FET, and thereby a minority interest in the FET transmission subsidiaries. On January 26, 2022, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative ("ODEC") filed a Motion to Intervene and Protest and American Municipal Power, Inc. ("AMP") filed a Protest. Both ODEC and AMP claimed that FET's 203 Application lacked certain information concerning the scope and operation of FET's commitment to hold ratepayers harmless and ensure the transaction has no adverse effect on rates. On that same day Public Citizen, Inc. filed a Motion to Consolidate and Protest, arguing that Icahn Group and BIP Securities II-B L.P. should be considered affiliates as defined by 18 C.F.R. § 35.36(a)(9)(iii) and to consolidate these proceedings with Docket No. EC22-27-000 (Item E-15 on the Agenda). On February 10, 2022, FET filed an Answer to ODEC and AMP, stating that the 203 Application was consistent with Commission requirements, policy and precedent on the hold harmless commitment. On February 10, FirstEnergy also filed an Answer to Public Citizen, stating Public Citizen's allegations in relation to the proceedings in Docket No. EC22-27-000 are irrelevant to this Section 203 proceeding. Most recently, on March 3, 2022 FET provided an Immaterial Update to the Application. Agenda item E-16 may be an order on FET's Section 203(a)(1) and 203(a)(2) Application.
Gas
G-1 – Actions Regarding the Commission's Policy on Price Index Formation and Transparency, and Indices Referenced in Natural Gas and Electric Tariffs (Docket No. PL20-3-000). On December 17, 2020, the Commission issued a proposed revised policy statement on natural gas and electric indices (Proposed Policy Statement. On December 23, 2020, the PJM Independent Market Monitor filed a Motion to Intervene. Between March 19, and March 24, 2021 comments were filed by the following parties: S&P Global Platts, American Public Gas Association, Argus Media Inc., Electric Power Supply Association, Entergy Intelligence Group, Inc. American Gas Association, Natural Gas Supply Association, Edison Electric Institute, EQT Entergy, LLC, and American Forest & Paper Association Process Gas Consumers Group. On March 23, 2021, the California Independent System Operation Corporation filed a Motion to Intervene and Comments. On April 6, 2021, the Interstate Municipal Gas Agency submitted reply comments in response to the initial comments submitted by the American Public Gas Association on March 22, 2021. On May 14, 2021, S&P Global Platts S&P submitted further comments regarding electricity price reporting specifically, as its previous March 19, 2021 comments focused on natural gas price reporting. Agenda item G-1 may be an order on the Revised Policy Statement.
G-2 – Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. (Docket No. RP22-725-000). The record in Docket No. RP22-725-000 has not yet been populated or initiated in eLibrary. Agenda item G-2 may be an action that is being taken sua sponte by the Commission.
G-3 – El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (Docket No. RP19-73-003). On December 30, 2021, El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. filed an Informational Compliance Filing – Cost and Revenue Study (Cost Revenue Filing). On January 11, 2022, BP Energy Company, ConocoPhillips Company, and Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. (jointly, Indicated Shippers) submitted a Protest and Comments on the Cost Revenue Filing. The Joint Shippers argued that the Cost Revenue Filing does not comply with requirements of the approved March 2019 settlement in Docket No. RP-19-73-001. The Joint Shippers argue that under the settlement El Paso Natural Gas was required to file a Cost and Revenue Study based upon its actual costs, revenues, and volumes. On January 18, 2022, the Southwestern Public Service Company submitted comments to the December Cost Revenue Filing. Southwestern Public Service Company also argued that the Cost Revenue Filing was not based on actual costs, revenues, and volumes, as required by the March 2019 and requested that the Commission direct El Paso Natural Gas to submit a new unadjusted Cost and Revenue Study based on actual costs, including its Commission-approved ROE. On January 31, 2022, El Paso Natural Gas filed a Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer to the comments and protest of the Indicated Shippers and the comments of Southwestern Public Service Company. El Paso Natural Gas requested that the Commission deny the relief sought by Indicated Shippers and Southwestern Public Service because El Paso Natural Gas complied with the plain terms of the March 2019 Settlement. Agenda item G-3 may be an order on El Paso Natural Gas' Cost Revenue Filing.
Hydro
H-1 – Ampersand Cranberry Lake Hydro, LLC (Docket No. P-9685-036). Agenda item H-1 may initiate a new sub-docket in the ongoing proceeding where the Commission ordered, on October 21, 2021 in sub-docket P-9685-034, Ampersand Cranberry Lake Hydro, LLC to explain why it should not be levied a $600,000 civil penalty for violation of its hydroelectric license by failing to retain possession of all project property covered by the license.
H-2 – STS Hydropower, LLC and Sugarloaf Hydro, LLC (Docket No. P-3819-012). On October 12, 2021, STS Hydropower, LLC and Sugarloaf Hydro, LLC (collectively, Applicants) submitted a Joint Application, pursuant to Section 8 of the FPA and Part 9 and Section 4.200 of the regulations of the Commission, for Approval of Transfer of License for the Sugarloaf Hydroelectric Plant, FERC Project No. 3819 located in Colorado. Applicants seek authorization to transfer the existing license from the current owner, STS Hydropower, LLC, to the proposed new owner and operator, Sugarloaf Hydro, LLC. Agenda item H-2 may be an order on the Joint Application.
Certificates
C-1 – North Baja Pipeline, LLC (Docket No. CP20-27-000). On December 16, 2019, North Baja Pipeline, LLC (North Baja) filed an Application (Application) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for its North Baja XPress Project. The North Baja Xpress Project consists of installing one new 31,900 ISO-horsepower gas-fired turbine compressor unit and restaging two existing 7,700 ISO-horsepower gas-fired turbine compressor units at North Baja's existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station in La Paz County, Arizona. The North Baja Xpress Project would also consist of installing additional flow measurement facilities and pipeline modifications at North Baja's existing El Paso and Ogilby Meter Stations in La Paz County, New Mexico and Imperial County, California, respectively. The Commission initially issued an Environmental Assessment for the North Baja XPress Project on September 8, 2020, which concluded that the North Baja XPress Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On May 27, 2021, the Commission issued a notice of intent to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the North Baja XPress Project to assist in consideration of that project's contribution to climate change and its decision-making process to determine whether North Baja's proposed North Baja XPress Project is in the public convenience and necessity. On October 22, 2021, the Commission released the final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the North Baja XPress Project. The Final EIS concluded that, with the exception of climate change impacts, approval of the East Lateral Xpress Project would not result in significant environmental impacts given the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIS. The Final EIS stated that Commission staff continues to be unable to determine significance with regard to climate change impacts. Agenda item C-1 may be an order on the Application.
C-2 – ANR Pipeline Company, Great Lakes Transmission Limited Partnership (Docket Nos. CP20-484-000, CP20-485-000). On June 22, 2020, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) and Great Lakes Transmission Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) filed applications for authorization under section 7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, respectively, for (a) ANR to construct and operate certain natural gas facilities in Evangeline Parish, Louisiana and acquire capacity through a lease on Great Lakes' system and (b) Great Lakes to abandon by lease, capacity on its system to ANR. The proposed projects are known as the Albert Xpress Project and Lease Capacity Abandonment Project, respectively. ANR's Alberta Xpress Project consists of construction and operation of one new compressor station and modifications to an existing mainline valve to provide 165,000 dekatherms per day of firm transportation service. The Commission initially issued an Environmental Assessment for ANR's Alberta Xpress Project on December 4, 2020, which concluded that ANR's Alberta Xpress Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The Commission also explained in such Environmental Assessment that (x) no environmental impacts are anticipated with Great Lakes' Lease Capacity Abandonment Project because that abandonment of firm capacity by lease agreement involves no construction or ground disturbance and (y) the proposed abandonment qualifies as a categorical exclusion under its regulations. On July 7, 2021, the Commission issued a notice of intent to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for both ANR's Alberta Xpress Project and Great Lakes' Lease Capacity Abandonment Project to assist in consideration of those projects' contribution to climate change and its decision-making process to determine whether those projects are in the public convenience and necessity. On October 29, 2021, the Commission released the final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for ANR's Alberta Xpress Project and Great Lakes' Lease Capacity Abandonment Project. The Final EIS concluded that, with the exception of climate change impacts, approval of ANR's Alberta Xpress Project would not result in significant environmental impacts given the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIS. The Final EIS stated that Commission staff continues to be unable to determine significance with regard to climate change impacts. The Final EIS also reiterated its determination in the Environmental Assessment that (x) no environmental impacts are anticipated with Great Lakes' Lease Capacity Abandonment Project because that abandonment of firm capacity by lease agreement involves no construction or ground disturbance and (y) the proposed abandonment qualifies as a categorical exclusion under Commission regulations. Agenda item C-2 may be an order on the Application.
C-3 – Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Docket No. CP20-493-000). On June 30, 2020, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) filed an application (Application) requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (East 300 Upgrade Project). The East 300 Upgrade Project consists of modifying two existing compressor stations and constructing one new compressor station to create 115 million cubic feet per day (115,000 dekatherms per day) of firm transportation capacity on Tennessee's existing 300 Line. The Commission initially issued an Environmental Assessment for the East 300 Upgrade Project on February 19, 2021, which concluded that the East 300 Upgrade Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On May 27, 2021, the Commission issued a notice of intent to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the East 300 Upgrade Project to assist in consideration of those projects' contribution to climate change and its decision-making process to determine whether those projects are in the public convenience and necessity. On November 12, 2021, the Commission released the final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the East 300 Upgrade Project. The Final EIS concluded that, with the exception of climate change impacts, approval of the East 300 Upgrade Project would not result in significant environmental impacts given the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIS. The Final EIS stated that Commission staff continues to be unable to determine significance with regard to climate change impacts. Agenda item C-3 may be an order on the Application.
C-4 – Rover Pipeline LLC (Docket No. CP21-474-000). On July 20, 2021, Rover Pipeline LLC (Rover) filed an application (Application) requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct an interconnect between the Rover Mainline B at milepost 19.5 in Seneca County, Ohio and pipeline facilities operated by North Coast Gas Transmission LLC (North Coast Interconnect Project). The Commission issued an Environmental Assessment for the North Coast Interconnect Project on January 27, 2022, which concluded that the North Coast Interconnect Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The Environmental Assessment stated that Commission staff continues to be unable to determine significance with regard to climate change impacts. Agenda item C-4 may be an order on the Application.
C-5 – Rover Pipeline LLC (Docket No. CP21-492-000). On September 9, 2021, Rover Pipeline LLC (Rover) filed an application (Application) requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate a new receipt and delivery meter station in Lenawee County, Michigan (Rover-Brightmark Delivery and Meter Station Project). The Commission issued an Environmental Assessment for the Rover-Brightmark Delivery and Meter Station Project on February 24, 2022, which concluded that the Rover-Brightmark Delivery and Meter Station Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The Environmental Assessment applied the Interim Policy Statement on "Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Natural Gas Infrastructure Project Reviews" issued on February 18, 2022 in Docket No. PL21-3-000, and determined that the construction, operation, and downstream emissions of the Rover-Brightmark Delivery and Meter Station Project would fall below the Commission's presumptive significance threshold of 100,000 metric tons per year of CO2e set forth therein. Agenda item C-5 may be an order on the Application.
C-6 – EcoEléctrica, L.P. (Docket No. CP95-35-000). After Puerto Rico experienced several earthquakes in late December 2019 and early January 2020, the Commission issued an order (Remedial Order) on March 26, 2020 restricting the operations of EcoEléctrica, L.P.'s (EcoEléctrica) liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal located at Guayanilla Bay in Peñuelas, Puerto Rico. The Remedial Order required EcoEléctrica to conduct a structural analysis of the LNG storage tank for review and approval. The Remedial Order also required that EcoEléctrica receive written authorization before increasing the storage tank's liquid level above 63 feet. Since then, Commission staff has advised EcoEléctrica on the type and scope of information needed to fulfill the Remedial Order's requirements. On May 19, 2021, EcoEléctrica filed a request for approval to increase the LNG storage tank's liquid level to 91 feet and included a structural analysis of the storage tank's inner and outer metal tanks to support its request. On September 24, 2021, the Commission issued a Briefing Order, finding that EcoEléctrica's structural analysis was inadequate to support authorizing the requested change in operations and withholding action on EcoEléctrica's request until a more complete record is developed. The Commission also found that EcoEléctrica had not fully demonstrated the reliability impacts associated with a temporary withholding of approval to increase the liquid storage level above 63 feet. The Briefing Order established a schedule for briefs addressing whether EcoEléctrica can safely operate its LNG storage tank at a liquid level higher than 63 feet. On October 25, 2021, EcoEléctrica requested that the Commission extend the deadline to file initial briefs from November 8, 2021 to May 31, 2022, and the deadline to file reply briefs from November 22, 2021 to June 14, 2022. On December 2, 2021, the Commission issued an Order Partially Granting Request for an Extension of Time, in which the Commission extended the deadline to file initial briefs to February 8, 2022 and the deadline to file reply briefs to February 22, 2022. The Commission explained that while it accepted EcoEléctrica's assertion that it was unable to complete the required analyses by the initial deadline, it could not delay until the deadlines requested by EcoEléctrica in light of foreseeable seismic activity similar to that which necessitated the Remedial Order as well as the Commission's need to receive the requested information prior to the next hurricane season in order to determine at what liquid level EcoEléctrica can safely operate its LNG storage tank and to determine what reliability impacts to Puerto Rico's electric grid could result from whatever liquid storage level we ultimately authorize. EcoEléctrica filed its initial brief on February 8, 2022. No parties filed reply briefs. Agenda item C-6 may be an order on EcoEléctrica's May 19, 2021 request for Commission approval to increase the LNG storage tank's liquid level to 91 feet.
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
