Below are summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's February 18, 2021 open meeting, pursuant to the agenda issued on February 11, 2021.
In this issue…
- Electric Items
- Gas Items
- Hydro Items
- Certificate Items
Electric
E-1 – Calpine Corporation, Dynegy Inc., Eastern Generation, LLC, Homer City Generation, L.P., NRG Power Marketing LLC, GenOn Energy Management, LLC, Carroll County Energy LLC, C.P. Crane LLC, Essential Power, LLC, Essential Power OPP, LLC, Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC, Lakewood Cogeneration, L.P., GDF SUEZ Energy Marketing NA, Inc., Oregon Clean Energy, LLC, and Panda Power Generation Infrastructure Fund, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket Nos. EL16-49-006, ER18-1314-010, & EL18-178-006). On June 29, 2018, the Commission issued an order addressing two underlying proceedings that were initiated due to increasing out of market support or state subsidies that were having a suppressive effect on the price of capacity procured by PJM Interconnection L.L.C. (PJM) through its Reliability Pricing Model (RPM) capacity market (June Order). In the first underlying proceeding, Calpine Corporation (Calpine) and other generation entities filed a complaint against PJM pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) alleging that the Minimum Offer Pricing Rule (MOPR) in PJM's OATT was unjust and unreasonable because it did not account for the impact on the RPM of existing resources receiving out of market subsidies. In the second underlying proceeding, PJM, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA filed proposed revisions to its OATT that included two alternate proposals to address the suppressive effects of out of market support for certain resources. The June Order rejected PJM's alternate proposals, found PJM's OATT unjust and unreasonable, granted Calpine's complaint in part, and also initiated a proceeding under section 206 of the FPA in a new docket because the Commission could not make a final determination regarding the just and reasonable replacement rate. On April 16, 2020, the Commission issued an order denying requests for rehearing and granting limited clarification. On October 15, 2020, the Commission issued an order addressing arguments on rehearing, MOPR-related compliance fillings, and proposed auction implementation schedule. In accordance with the Commission's directive, PJM has submitted compliance ordered by the Commission in its October 15, 2020 order. Agenda item E-1 may be an order relating to the various filings in the above-referenced proceeding.
E-2 – New York State Public Service Commission, New York Power Authority, Long Island Power Authority, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, City of New York, Advanced Energy Management Alliance, and Natural Resources Defense Council v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket Nos. EL16-92-004 & ER17-996-004). In 2016, complainants filed a complaint against New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) alleging the application of NYISO's buyer-side market power mitigation rules is unjust and unreasonable because the rules limit full participation of Special Case Resources (SCRs) in NYISO's installed capacity market and interferes with federal, state, and local policy objectives. In 2017, the Commission granted in part the complaint to allow a blanket exemption for new SCRs from NYISO's buyer-side market power mitigation rules, and denied in part so that the blanket exemption would not include SCRs currently subject to mitigation. On February 20, 2020, the Commission reversed that finding, granting in part and denying in part IPPNY's request for rehearing of the Complaint Order. In the same order, the Commission reopened the record in this proceeding for a paper hearing to begin its individual evaluation of retail-level demand response programs in NYISO, beginning with the programs described in the underlying complaint in this proceeding. On October 7, 2020, the Commission issued an order on compliance and paper hearing, and addressing arguments on rehearing. The Commission accepted NYISO's compliance filing to be effective May 12, 2020, and directed NYISO to submit a further compliance filing within 45 days, as well as finding that the payments received under the Distribution Load Relief Programs submitted for consideration in this proceeding qualify for exclusion from the calculation of SCR offer floors. On November 5, 2020, the New York Public Service Commission filed a request for rehearing of the Commission's October 7 order. Agenda item E-2 may be an order on the request for rehearing of the October 7 order.
E-3 – Grid Resilience in Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (Docket No. AD18-7-000). On January 8, 2018, the Commission issued an order to evaluate the resilience of the bulk power system in the regions operated by regional transmission organizations (RTO) and independent system operators (ISO), and directed each RTO and ISO to submit information to the Commission on certain resilience issues and concerns identified to enable the Commission to examine holistically the resilience of the bulk power system. Agenda item E-3 may be an order related to the responses received from the ISOs and RTOs regarding resilience of the bulk power system.
E-4 – Grid Reliability and Resilience Pricing (Docket No. RM18-1-001). On January 8, 2018, the Commission issued an order terminating the proposed rulemaking regarding the Proposed Rule on Grid Reliability and Resilience Pricing submitted for consideration by the Secretary of the Department of Energy. On February 7, 2018, the Foundation for Resilient Societies filed a request for rehearing of the Commission's January 2018 order. Agenda item E-4 may be an order on the request for rehearing.
E-5 – Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. ER21-720-000). On December 23, 2020, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) submitted an unexecuted Facilities Service Agreement (FSA) among Heartland Divide Wind II LLC, ITC Midwest LLC, and MISO. At the direction of the Heartland Divide Wind II LLC, the FSA was submitted on an unexecuted basis because of continued legal uncertainty regarding whether a MISO transmission owner can unilaterally elect to self-fund network upgrades. On January 13, 2021, Heartland Divide Wind II LLC submitted a protest to the filing by MISO. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the proposed filing from MISO.
E-6 – Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. ER21-721-000). On December 23, 2020, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) submitted an unexecuted Facilities Service Agreement (FSA) among Walleye Wind, LLC, ITC Midwest LLC, and MISO. At the direction of the Walleye Wind, LLC, the FSA was submitted on an unexecuted basis because of continued legal uncertainty regarding whether a MISO transmission owner can unilaterally elect to self-fund network upgrades. On January 13, 2021, Walleye Wind, LLC submitted a protest to the filing by MISO. Agenda item E-6 may be an order on the proposed filing from MISO.
E-7 – Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. ER21-722-000). On December 23, 2020, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) submitted an unexecuted Facilities Service Agreement (FSA) among Emmons-Logan Wind, LLC, ITC Midwest LLC, and MISO. At the direction of the Emmons-Logan Wind, LLC, the FSA was submitted on an unexecuted basis because of continued legal uncertainty regarding whether a MISO transmission owner can unilaterally elect to self-fund network upgrades. On January 13, 2021, Emmons-Logan Wind, LLC submitted a protest to the filing by MISO. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the proposed filing from MISO.
E-8 – North Star Solar PV LLC (Docket Nos. ER21-791-000 and ER20-1952-000). On January 4, 2021, North Start Solar PV LLC (North Star) submitted a notice of cancellation and withdrawal of its Rate Schedule FERC No.1, Reactive Power Compensation, and request that Docket No. ER20-1052 be terminated. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on the North Start requests.
E-9 – CPV Fairview, LLC (Docket No. ER20-287-002). On November 1, 2019, CPV Fairview, LLC (CPV Fairview) filed a proposed reactive power tariff (Rate Schedule) pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) setting forth its cost-based revenue requirements for the provision of Reactive Service from the facility pursuant to Schedule 2 of the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff. On December 30, 2019, the Commission issued an order accepting the proposed rate schedule, instituting a section 206 proceeding under the FPA, and establishing hearing and settlement judge procedures. During the course of holding settlement conferences, the parties reached agreement in principle. On August 11, 2020, the settlement judge issued an order certifying the settlement as uncontested and recommended it for approval by the Commission. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the uncontested settlement.
E-10 – Louisiana Energy and Power Authority (Docket No. EL19-52-000). On March 1, 2019, Louisiana Energy and Power Authority (LEPA) filed, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, a proposed cost-based revenue requirement for providing Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service (Reactive Service), as that service is defined in Schedule 2 of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.'s (MISO) Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff (Tariff), for the reactive power production capability of its LEPA Unit No. 1 Power Plant Facility (LEPA Unit No. 1). On April 30, 2019, the Commission issued an Order Accepting Proposed Revenue Requirement and Establishing Hearing and Settlement Judge Procedures. On July 3, 2019, LEPA submitted a letter requesting permission to withdraw the March 1, 2019 filing proposing a reactive revenue requirement for reactive service. Agenda item E-10 may be an order acting on LEPA's request to withdraw its filing.
E-11 – Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. ER18-99-004). On October 18, 2017, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) filed, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, proposed tariff revisions to add an annual transmission revenue requirement (ATRR) and implement a formula rate template and implementation protocols for transmission service using the facilities of GridLiance. The filing was made in response to GridLiance's proposed acquisition of transmission assets from the City of Nixa, Missouri (Nixa Assets) and transfer of control of the Nixa Assets to SPP. SPP proposed to place the Nixa Assets in SPP Pricing Zone 10. On March 15, 2018, the Commission issued an order accepting the proposed tariff revisions and establishing hearing and settlement judge procedures to determine whether the placement of the Nixa Assets in Pricing Zone 10 is just and reasonable. On July 12, 2018, after the parties failed to reach settlement, Settlement Judge H. Peter Young declared an impasse. Jennifer M. Long was designated as the Presiding Judge and a hearing was held March 5 to March 7, 2019. At the conclusion of the hearing, Presiding Judge Long referred the case to the Commission's Alternative Dispute Resolution Division and encouraged settlement pending completion of the hearing procedures. On July 10, 2019, GridLiance and the ARKMO Cities filed a joint motion to suspend the procedural schedule to allow sufficient time to submit a settlement agreement prior to the issuance of an Initial Decision. The Offer of Settlement was filed on August 30, 2019. Multiple parties filed comments opposing the Offer of Settlement. On May 27, 2020, Presiding Judge Long certified the contested settlement. Agenda item E-11 may be an order in response to the offer of settlement.
E–12 – Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Docket Nos. ER20-2441-001, ER20-2442-001, EL20-68-001). On July 16, 2020, Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin) filed, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA): 1) Rate Schedules No. 1 through No. 19, representing long-term, wholesale power supply contracts (Wholesale Power Contracts) between Basin and 19 of its electric cooperative, municipality, and public power district members (Members); and 2) two versions of Rate Schedule A, Basin's stated rate that establishes rates for the service Basin provides to its Members pursuant to the terms of the Wholesale Power Contracts. On September 14, 2020, the Commission issued an order dismissing as moot Basin's 2019 Rate Schedule A, accepting Basin's 2020 Rate Schedule A and the Wholesale Power Contracts, setting a refund effective date, and establishing hearing and settlement judge procedures (September Order). In the September Order, the Commission also initiated, pursuant to FPA section 206, an investigation to determine whether Basin's 2020 Rate Schedule A and Wholesale Power Contracts are just and reasonable. Several requests for rehearing of the September Order were submitted on October 14, 2020. Agenda item E-12 may be an order addressing the requests for rehearing.
E-13 – PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. ER20-2686-000). On August 17, 2020, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) submitted, in compliance with directives issued by the Commission in a June 18, 2020 order, in Docket No. EL19-91, explanations of how it planned to implement its proposal window exemption for immediate-need reliability projects. Specifically, PJM explains:
- how it will provide stakeholders "sufficient detail" regarding: a) the specifics of the reliability violation driving the need for the immediate-need reliability exemption, b) why the violation arose, c) when the violation first occurred, d) the implications of the violation in terms of generation, load, congestion, etc., e) the severity of the problem, and f) expectations for the violations' severity in the future;
- how it will expound on its description to support the immediate-need reliability project, including: a) time-sensitive need, b) why the incumbent transmission owner was selected, c) alternative solutions considered and d) why the need was not identified earlier; and
- the steps it is taking to post all immediate-need information so that it is more easily accessible to stakeholders on the PJM website.
PJM also submitted revisions to its Operating Agreement to include a ten-day time period to provide stakeholders sufficient time to review and comment on immediate-need reliability project materials. Agenda item E-13 may be an order addressing the compliance filing.
E-14 – Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. ER20-598-002). On December 13, 2019, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) filed, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, proposed tariff revisions to Duke Energy Indiana, LLC's (DEI) Attachment O, establishing a separate depreciation rate schedule to be used as an input to DEI's formula rate template (December Filing). On May 8, 2020, the Commission accepted the depreciation rate schedule submitted for filing, suspended it for a nominal period to become effective February 12, 2020, subject to refund, and established hearing and settlement judge procedures. On July 31, 2020, during settlement negotiations, DEI submitted, in Docket No. ER20-2571, revisions to its depreciation rate schedule to incorporate new depreciation rates to become effective August 1, 2020 (July Filing). The July Filing was accepted, effective August 1, 2020. Accordingly, the depreciation rate schedule established in Docket No. ER20-598 will be effective for the locked-in period from February 12, 2020 through July 31, 2020. On December 3, 2020, DEI submitted an uncontested offer of settlement. On January 5, 2020, as amended January 6, 2020, Settlement Judge Sterner certified the uncontested settlement. Agenda item E-14 may be an order addressing the offer of settlement.
E-15 – Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. ER20-945-002). On February 3, 2020, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted, in compliance with directives issued by the Commission in a September 19, 2019 order, in Docket No. AD18-8, proposed revisions to its generation interconnection procedures (GIP) to provide that a description of the modeling details used when studying a project as ERIS or NRIS can be found in the document "Guidelines for the SPP GIP Process and Business Practices," (Guidelines) posted on the generator interconnection study posting page on SPP's Open Access Same-time Information System, and in SPP Business Practice 7250. On June 30, 2020, Commission Staff issued a delegated letter order accepting SPP's proposed Tariff revisions, effective April 4, 2020, as requested, subject to SPP submitting a further compliance filing that includes the appropriate section number where the ERIS and NRIS modeling details are contained in the "Guidelines for the SPP GIP Process and Business Practices" document (First Deficiency Letter). On August 31, 2020, SPP submitted, in response to the First Deficiency Letter, further revisions to its GIP to provide the section numbers requested in the First Deficiency Letter. On October 30, 2020, Commission Staff issued a letter order directing SPP to submit an explanation why the proposed GIP revisions refer to a section in the Guidelines addressing modeling details used for affected system studies rather than the section that provides the ERIS and NRIS modeling details (Second Deficiency Letter). On November 20, 2020, SPP submitted, in response to the Second Deficiency Letter, an explanation that it mistakenly referred to the wrong section of the Guidelines and further revisions to its GIP to reference the appropriate section numbers in its Guidelines. Agenda item E-15 may be an order addressing the compliance filings and responses to the deficiency letters.
E-16 – Western Area Power Administration (Docket No. NJ21-1-000). On October 1, 2020, the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) filed revisions to its non-jurisdictional Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) and petitioned the Commission for a declaratory order finding that the modifications to WAPA's OATT substantially conform to, or are superior to, the Commission's pro forma OATT, and that the modifications satisfy the requirements for reciprocity status. The proposed revisions and declaratory order are to facilitate the participation of WAPA's Sierra Nevada Region in the California Independent System Operator's Western Energy Imbalance Market. Agenda item E-16 may be an order addressing the proposed tariff revisions and petition for declaratory order.
E-17 – Brunner Island, LLC (Docket No. EG00-39-000). On October 26, 2020, as supplemented on December 2, 2020, Brunner Island, LLC (Brunner) filed an exempt wholesale generator (EWG) self-certification filing. On December 18, 2020, Commission Staff responded with a request for additional information regarding statements in Brunner's filing indicating that it would share in the proceeds from the sale of processed third-party fly ash (Deficiency Letter). On December 30, 2020, Brunner submitted a response to the Deficiency Letter describing the fly ash agreement entered into by its non-EWG affiliate. Agenda item E-17 may be an order addressing the self-certification or response to the Deficiency Letter.
E-18 – Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. ER15-2115-008). On July 7, 2015, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) filed, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, proposed tariff revisions to add an annual transmission revenue requirement (ATRR) and implement a formula rate template, workpapers and worksheets, and implementation protocols for transmission service using the facilities of Northwest Iowa Power Cooperative (NIPCO). The filing included a list of contracts between NIPCO and MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican) as grandfathered agreements (GFAs) to be included in the amended Attachment W of SPP's tariff. The filing was made in response to NIPCO's transfer of control of transmission Assets to SPP. On September 30, 2015, the Commission issued an Order Accepting Tariff Revisions, Implementing Formula Rates, and Establishing Hearing and Settlement Judge Procedures (September Order). In the September Order, the Commission accepted the proposed Tariff revisions for filing, effective October 1, 2015, subject to refund, and set the return on equity (ROE) and Formula Rate for hearing and settlement judge procedures. The parties participated in multiple settlement and technical conferences. On July 12, 2017, SPP, on behalf of NIPCO, filed an offer of settlement and a settlement agreement (2017 Settlement) that would have resolved all the issues set for hearing. NIPCO, MidAmerican, and Basin Electric filed comments in support of the 2017 Settlement. MRES, WAPA, and Trial Staff filed comments opposing the 2017 Settlement because of the proposed ratemaking treatment of NIPCO's GFAs. On June 20, 2019, the Commission rejected the 2017 Settlement and the proceeding was remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge to resume hearing procedures. The parties entered hearing procedures, however pandemic-related delays lead the Chief Judge to appoint a second settlement judge to further explore potential settlement on March 18, 2020. On May 5, 2020, the parties and Trial Staff agreed to and filed a partial settlement based on NIPCO's ATRR, formula rate template and formula rate implementation protocols. On July 21, 2020, the Commission issued an order approving the partial settlement. Due to an inability to resolve the remaining issues in subsequent settlement negotiations, formal settlement procedures were again terminated on October 30, 2020. Notwithstanding the apparent impasse, the parties continued informal settlement negotiations and were able to submit an offer of settlement addressing the remaining issues on December 17, 2020. Agenda item E-18 may be an order in response to the offer of settlement.
E-19 – PP&L Industrial Customer Alliance v. PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (Docket No. EL20-48-001). On May 21, 2020, PPL Industrial Customer Alliance (PPLICA) filed a Complaint against PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL Electric) and supplemented by an Amended Complaint as filed on June 10, 2020. In the Complaint, PPLICA alleges that the return on equity (ROE) granted to PPL Electric was unjust and unreasonable. On July 10, 2020, PPL Electric filed an Answer stating that the Complaint was incorrectly based solely on Order No. 569, which would be revised by the Commission as indicated by an open meeting agenda sunshine notice published at the time of the PPLICA Complaint. On October 15, 2020, the Commission issued an order setting the matter for settlement judge procedures and establishing a refund effective date of May 21, 2020. On November 16, 2020, PPL Electric filed a request for rehearing of the October 15 order, asserting that the Commission failed to address the completeness of the PPLICA Complaint and that the refund date should be no earlier than the original filing. Agenda item E-19 may be an order on the request for rehearing as brought forward by PPL Electric.
E-20 – Cloverland Electric Cooperative v. Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Docket No. EL20-57-000). On July 1, 2020, Cloverland Electric Cooperative (Cloverland) filed a Complaint against Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Wisconsin Electric) pursuant to Sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). In the Complaint, Cloverland alleges that the ROE granted to Wisconsin Electric is too high and is therefore seeking a reduction from the existing 11 percent ROE which Cloverland deems unjust and unreasonable. On August 18, 2020, Wisconsin Electric filed an Answer stating that both Order No. 569-A methodology and extenuating financial market circumstances due to the pandemic support maintaining the 11 percent ROE on file with the Commission. Agenda item E-20 may be an order on the Complaint as brought forward by Cloverland.
E-21 – Public Citizen, Inc. and Citizens Action Coalition v. CenterPoint Energy, Inc. and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company (Docket No. EL21-2-000). On October 5, 2020, Public Citizen, Inc. and Citizens Action Coalition (collectively, Complainants) filed a Complaint against Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company (SIGEC) pursuant to Section 206 of the FPA. In the Complaint, Complainants allege that SIGEC failed to report a change in status of its market-based rate authority (MBRA) seller, per a filing made to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Complainants believe the SEC filing, which details an injection of equity financing by a group of companies, represents a material change in control and that SIGEC should be considered as an affiliate to CenterPoint Energy, Inc. On October 26, 2020, SIGEC filed an Answer to the Complaint, stating that there has been no change in control as the new ownership stakes comprise less than ten percent of shares, which would be under the Commission threshold for control. Agenda item E-21 may be an order on the Complaint as brought forward by Public Citizen, Inc. and Citizens Action Coalition.
E-22 – Hoopa Valley Tribe and Hoopa Valley Public Utility District (Docket No. EL20-73-000). On September 28, 2020, the Hoopa Valley Tribe and Hoopa Valley Public Utility District (collectively, Hoopa Valley) filed a Petition for Declaratory Order seeking a determination that the Hoopa Valley entities are exempt "public utilities" as defined under Section 201(f) of the FPA and the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 (PUHCA). Hoopa Valley states that its facilities are instrumentalities of the federal government and therefore should be exempt. Agenda item E-22 may be an order on the Petition as brought forward by Hoopa Valley.
E-23 – The Dayton Power and Light Company (Docket No. ER20-1068-002); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and The Dayton Power and Light Company (Docket No. ER20-2100-002). On February 24, 2020, The Dayton Power and Light Company (DPL) filed an Application for Construction Work In Progress (CWIP) Incentives relating to approximately $170 million in projected expenses in forthcoming projects. DPL 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. On August 17, 2020, the Commission issued an order allowing DPL to apply the CWIP incentives to a portion of expenses already incurred in order to improve the cash flow of a utility that is undertaking a large transmission buildout. On September 16, 2020, DPL filed a Request for Rehearing of the August 17 order, namely seeking clarification on the accounting treatment of certain costs. On November 19, 2020, the Commission issued an order on the Request for Rehearing, finding that there was no connection between the CWIP incentive and the costs incurred before the effective date of the incentive. On December 8, 2020, DPL filed a Request for Rehearing of the November 19 order, alleging that the Commission fundamentally reversed its initial decision (in the August 17 order) and did not merely address the accounting treatment question at the crux of the first Request for Rehearing. Agenda item E-23 may be an order on the Request for Rehearing as brought forward by DPL.
E-24 – ISO New England Inc. (Docket No. ER18-619-002). On January 8, 2018, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) submitted proposed revisions to its tariff to modify its Forward Capacity Market to better accommodate actions taken by New England states procuring resources outside of ISO-NE's wholesale markets. On March 9, 2018, the Commission issued an order accepting ISO-NE's proposed tariff revisions. In April 2018, numerous parties requested rehearing of the March 2018 order. On November 19, 2020, the Commission issued an order on the Request for Rehearing, modifying and affirming the March 2018 order by referring to the last two capacity auctions under the Competitive Auctions with Sponsored Policy Resources (CASPR) framework and phasing out the minimum offer price rule for Renewable Technology Resources. On December 21, 2020, Clean Energy Advocates filed a Request for Rehearing of the November 2020 order, asserting that the Commission ignored the "real-world performance" of capacity markets and the substitution auction's failure to enable significant penetration of state-sponsored renewable resources that are being built in accordance with state policies and laws. Agenda item E-24 may be an order on the Request for Rehearing as brought forward by Clean Energy Advocates.
Gas
G-1 – Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines (Docket No. RM96-1-042). Agenda item G-1 may initiate a new rulemaking proceeding relating to the Standards of Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.
G-2 – BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and ExxonMobil Pipeline Company (Docket No. OR14-6-004). On November 16, 2020, BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and ExxonMobil Pipeline Company (Joint Parties) filed a Request for Rehearing of the order issued on November 9, 2020 by the Commission in the preceding sub-docket of this proceeding. Joint Parties assert that the Commission "inexplicably" reversed course and is now requiring a more expansive hearing than originally conducted in the phase of this proceeding originating in 2014, which would extend far beyond the issues raised in the initial filing. Namely, Joint Parties find that only one material issue remains in play as remanded to the Commission by the US District Court for Appeals – District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit), which is the issue of capital costs. Joint Parties express concern that adherence to the November 9 order would excessively revise the procedural schedule and accordingly brings the other material issue of coker yields, resolved by the DC Circuit, back into the Commission investigation. Agenda item G-2 may be an order on the Request for Rehearing as brought forward by Joint Parties.
G-3 – TransMontaigne Partners L.P. and Metroplex Energy, Inc. v. Colonial Pipeline Company (Docket No. OR19-23-001). On August 7, 2020, TransMontaigne Partners L.P. (TransMontaigne) filed a Request for Rehearing of the order issued on July 8, 2020 by the Commission in the preceding sub-docket of this proceeding. In the July 8 order, the Commission dismissed the Joint Complaint filed by TransMontaigne and Metroplex Energy, Inc. filed on May 1, 2019 relating to the provision of in-transit storage in pipeline facilities and the alleged disparity between shippers utilizing the storage facilities at two separate locations. According to TransMontaigne, the Commission issued the denial in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Agenda item G-3 may be an order on the Request for Rehearing as brought forward by TransMontaigne.
Hydro
H-1 – 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). Agenda item H-1 may be an order establishing a new docket for a notice of proposed rulemaking on removing the profile drawing requirement for qualifying conduit notices of intent and revising the filing requirements for major hydroelectric projects that are 10MW or less.
H-2 – Pumped Hydro Storage LLC (Docket No. P-14995-000). On May 14, 2019, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), Pumped Hydro Storage, LLC (Pump Hydro Storage) filed an application for a preliminary permit for the proposed 1,250 MW San Francisco River Pumped Storage Project (SFR Project) to be located in Greenlee County, Arizona and Catron County, New Mexico. Agenda item H-2 may be an order on Pump Hydro Storage's preliminary permit application for the SFR Project.
H-3 – ECOsponsible, LLC (Docket No. P-15032-001). On May 6, 2020, pursuant to section 4(f) of the FPA, ECOsponsible, LLC (ECOsponsible) filed an application for a preliminary permit for the proposed Springville Dam Hydro Project No. 15032 (Springville Dam Hydro Project) to be located on the Cattaraugus Creek in the town of Concord in Erie County, New York. On October 23, 2020, the Commission issued an order denying ECOsponsible's preliminary permit application for the Springville Dam Hydro Project (October Order). On November 23, 2020, ECOsponsible requested rehearing of the October Order. On December 28, 2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law (December 28 Notice) stating that the rehearing request filed in the proceeding will be addressed in a future order. Agenda item H-3 may be the future order referenced in the Commission's December 28 Notice.
H-4 – Navajo Energy Storage Station LLC (Docket No. P-15001-000). On July 1, 2019, pursuant to section 4(f) of the FPA, Navajo Energy Storage Station LLC (Navajo ESS) filed an application for a preliminary permit for the proposed Navajo Energy Storage Station Pumped Storage Project (Navajo Energy Project) to be located at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Lake Powell Reservoir on the Colorado River in San Juan County, Arizona. Agenda item H-4 may be an order on Navajo ESS' preliminary permit application for the Navajo Energy Project.
H-5 – Public Utility District No. 1 of Lewis County Washington (Docket No. P-2833-118). On December 16, 2019, as supplemented September 23, 2020, Public Utility District No. 1 of Lewis County, Washington (PUD1), filed final design plans for approved whitewater boating take-out sites for the Cowlitz Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2833, located at the confluence of the Cispus and Cowlitz Rivers in Lewis County, Washington. PUD1's filing was made pursuant to an April 30, 2019 Order Amending Whitewater Boating Take-Out Site Plan issued by Commission staff. On November 17, 2020, the Commission issued an order approving PUD1's final design plans (November Order). On December 14, 2020, Michael G. Deckert requested rehearing of the November Order. On January 14, 2021, the Commission issued a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law (January 14 Notice) stating that the rehearing request filed in the proceeding will be addressed in a future order. Agenda item H-5 may be the future order referenced in the Commission's January 14 Notice.
Certificates
C-1 – Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities (Docket No. PL18-1-000). On April 19, 2018, the Commission issued a notice of inquiry seeking input to help the Commission explore whether, and if so how, it should revise its approach under its currently effective policy statement on the certification of new natural gas transportation facilities to determine whether a proposed natural gas project is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity, as that standard is established in section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Numerous entities submitted comments in the proceeding. Agenda item C-1 may be an order related to the Commission's pipeline certification notice of inquiry.
C-2 – Andalusian Energy, LLC (Docket No. CP20-496-000). On July 20, 2020, Andalusian Energy, LLC (Andalusian) filed a petition for declaratory order seeking a determination that Andalusian's proposed compressed natural gas facility to be located within the Port of Brownsville, Texas, is not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. Agenda item C-2 may be an order on Andalusian's petition for declaratory order.
C-3 – Freeport LNG Development, L.P., FLNG Liquefaction, LLC, FLNG Liquefaction 2, LLC, and FLNG Liquefaction 3, LLC (Docket No. CP20-532-000). On September 30, 2020, pursuant to section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act, Freeport LNG Development, L.P., FLNG Liquefaction, LLC, FLNG Liquefaction 2, LLC and FLNG Liquefaction 3, LLC (collectively, Freeport) submitted an application requesting authorization for a limited amendment to a prior authorization granted by the Commission on July 7, 2016 in Docket No. CP15-518-000 (July 7 Order). Specifically, Freeport requests that the Commission revise the July 7 Order to reflect the maximum liquefied natural gas (LNG) production capacity for Freeport's LNG project on an annual basis, rather than a daily basis.
C-4 – Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC (Docket No. CP16-9-012). On September 24, 2020, Commission staff issued an in-service authorization, granting Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC's and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.'s September 2020 request, to place into service facilities associated with the Atlantic Bridge Project, including the Weymouth Compressor Station in Norfolk, Massachusetts, and the Maritimes Westbrook Metering and Regulator Station in Cumberland, Maine (September Authorization). On October 23, 2020, the Fore River Residents Against the Compressor Station, the City of Quincy, Massachusetts, Weymouth Councilor Rebecca Haugh, Michael H. Hayden, and Food & Water Watch requested rehearing and recession of the September Authorization. On November 23, 2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law (November 23 Notice) stating that the rehearing request filed in the proceeding will be addressed in a future order. Agenda item C-4 may be the future order referenced in the Commission's November 23 Notice.
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
