Below are summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s March 24, 2022 open meeting, pursuant to the sunshine notice released on March 17, 2022. Item E-4 has not been summarized due to omission from the agenda.
In this issue…
- Electric Items
- Gas Items
- Hydro Items
- Certificate Items
Electric
E-1 – Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc., Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York, State Electric & Gas Corporation, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation v. New York, Independent System Operator Inc.; New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (Docket Nos. EL21-66-001, ER21-1647-002). On April 9, 2021, under Docket No. EL21-66, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the above-referenced New York-area transmission companies (collectively, the New York Transmission Owners) filed a complaint against the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) alleging that the funding methodology for system upgrade facilities and system deliverability upgrades is unjust, unreasonable, and contrary to judicial and Commission precedent. The complaint sought to amend the NYISO Open Access Transmission Tariff (NYISO OATT) to allow the New York Transmission Owners to provide initial funding for system upgrades caused by generator interconnections and to charge the interconnecting customer to recover a return on that cost. On September 3, 2021, the Commission issued an order denying the complaint. Relatedly, on April 9, 2021, under Docket No. ER21-1647, the New York Transmission Owners filed pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, as amended on July 8, 2021, to revise the existing funding methodology for system upgrade facilities and system deliverability upgrades. On September 3, 2021, the Commission issued an order rejecting the filing on procedural grounds, finding the New York Transmission Owners do not have a unilateral right to make an FPA section 205 filing in this instance. The New York Transmission Owners have filed requests for rehearing of both Commission orders. Agenda item E-1 may be an order on the New York Transmission Owners requests for rehearing of the Commission’s September 3 orders.
E-2 – Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Louisville Gas and Electric Company, Alabama Power Company, and Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER21-1115-003, ER21-1118-003, ER21-1125-003, ER21-1128-003). On February 12, 2021, as amended on June 7, 2021, and August 11, 2021, Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Louisville Gas and Electric Company, Alabama Power Company, and Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (collectively, the Transmission Providers) filed, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, proposed revisions to their respective open access transmission tariffs to incorporate non-firm energy exchange transmission service. On November 8, 2021, the Commission issued an order approving the Transmission Providers’ proposed changes. Several parties have filed requests for rehearing of the Commission’s November 8 order. Agenda item E-2 may be an order regarding the requests for rehearing of the Commission’s November 8 order.
E-3 – Alabama Power Company, Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc., Louisville Gas and Electric Company, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Georgia Power Company, Kentucky Utilities Company, and Mississippi Power Company (Docket Nos. ER21-1111-005, ER21-1112-005, ER21-1114-005, ER21-1116-005, ER21-1117-005, ER21-1119-005, ER21-1120-005, ER21-1121-005). On February 12, 2021, as amended on June 7, 2021, and August 11, 2021, the above-referenced prospective members of the Southeast Energy Exchange Market (Southeast EEM) filed, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, the Southeast EEM Agreement on behalf of themselves and other prospective members. On October 13, 2021, the Secretary of the Commission issued a notice stating that “[p]ursuant to section 205 of the FPA, in the absence of Commission action on or before October 11, 2021, the proposed Southeast EEM Agreement and concurrences thereto became effective by operation of law” because the Commissioners were “divided two against two as to the lawfulness of the change.” On December 10, 2021, the Commission issued an order denying as untimely requests for rehearing. Certain parties have requested rehearing of the Commission’s December 10 order. Agenda item E-3 may be an order relating to the requests for rehearing of the Commission’s December 10 order and the October 13 notice.
E-4 – Omitted
E-5 – Glaciers Edge Wind Project, LLC (Docket No. ER22-865-000). On January 21, 2022, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, and Part 35 of the Commission’s regulations, Glaciers Edge Wind Project, LLC (Glaciers Edge) submitted for filing a rate schedule for reactive supply and voltage control under the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.’s (MISO) Open Access Transmission Tariff (MISO Tariff). On February 11, 2022, MidAmerican Energy Company filed a protest of the January 21 filing. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on Glacier Edge’s reactive supply and voltage control rate schedule submittal.
E-6 – Western Electricity Coordinating Council (Docket No. EL10-56-000). On May 14, 2021, the Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF) submitted a motion requesting the Commission provide responses to the filing made the previous year by parties justifying bids above the Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC) soft offer cap. Subsequent filers have submitted responses to the WPTF and have requested the Commission provide additional relief, including (1) extending the deadline to submit a justification for spot market sales in excess of the WECC soft cap to 30 days from the end of the month, and (2) increasing the soft cap to $2,000/MWh. Agenda item E-6 may be an order relating to the motions and filings regarding the WECC soft offer cap.
E-7 – Oliver Wind Energy Center II, LLC (Docket No. ER21-2401-001). On July 13, 2021, Oliver Wind Energy Center II, LLC (Oliver II) filed a proposed rate schedule for its Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service as defined on Schedule 2 of the MISO Tariff. On August 31, 2021, the Commission issued an order accepting the proposed rate schedules for filing and establishing hearing and settlement judge procedures. On January 5, 2022, Oliver II filed a formal offer of settlement. On February 7, 2022, the presiding administrative law judge issued an order certifying the offer of settlement as uncontested. Agenda item E-7 may be an order regarding the proposed Oliver II offer of settlement.
E-8 – Bonneville Power Administration (Docket No. ER21-3-000). On July 30, 2021, as supplemented on August 2, 2021, Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) submitted a request for interim and final approval of proposed wholesale power and transmission rates for proposed fiscal years 2022 – 2023 in accordance with the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act) and Subpart B of Part 300 of the Commission’s regulations. Protests and motions to intervene for the July 30 and the supplemented August 2 application were due on or before August 30, 2021 and September 1, 2021, respectively. Several parties filed non-substantive Motions to Intervene. On August 27, 2021, Idaho Conservation League, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, and Idaho Rivers United (Idaho Environmental Parties) filed a protest opposing the confirmation and approval of Bonneville’s proposed power and transmission rates for the 2022–2023 rate period. The Idaho Environmental Parties asserted that Bonneville has a statutory obligation to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the federal hydropower system, which Bonneville violated by underfunding or failing to fund much-needed fish mitigation and enhancement projects. The Idaho Environmental Parties also argued that under the Northwest Power Act and Administrative Procedure Act, Bonneville must demonstrate “equitable treatment” for fish and wildlife in its final rate determination. On September 7, 2021, Bonneville filed a request for leave to answer and an answer to Idaho Environmental Parties’ protest arguing that FERC has limited jurisdiction over Bonneville’s power and transmission rates established by section 7(a)(2) of the Northwest Power Act. Specifically, Bonneville argued that because its compliance with its environmental review and fish and wildlife protection are outside the scope of 7(a)(2) that therefore this compliance is not within the Commission’s review. Additionally, Bonneville argues that while it has complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, the Commission’s review is limited to section 7(a)(2) of the Northwest Procedure Act. On September 30, 2021, the Commission issued an order that Bonneville’s wholesale power and transmission rates filing appears to meet the statutory standards and the minimum threshold filing requirements of Part 300 of the Commission’s regulations. Moreover, the Commission’s preliminary review did not indicate that Bonneville’s submittal contained any patent deficiencies. Therefore, it approved the proposed rates on an interim basis pending full review for final approval subject to potential refunds. Parties had 30 days after the order to file additional comments regarding the final confirmation and approval of Bonneville’s proposed rate and parties could have filed reply comments within 20 days thereafter. No additional comments were filed. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on the Commission’s final decision to approve or not approve the proposed rates.
E-9 – Oliver Wind I, LLC (Docket No. ER21-2179-001). On June 22, 2021, Oliver Wind I, LLC (Oliver I) submitted a proposed rate schedule in accordance with Schedule 2 of the MISO OATT, which specifies Oliver I’s revenue requirement for the provision of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation or Other Sources Service from the Oliver I wind generating facility. MISO filed a timely motion to intervene on June 23, 2021 and Allete filed a motion for leave to intervene out-of-time on July 28, 2021. On August 20, the Commission accepted MISO’s motion to intervene and granted Allete’s late-filed motion to intervene. Additionally, the Commission found that upon its initial review Oliver I’s proposed rate schedule had not been shown to be just and reasonable and may in fact be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential, or otherwise unlawful. The Commission therefore accepted the proposed rate schedule and suspended it for a nominal period, subject to refund, and established hearing and settlement judge procedures. A settlement judge was designated on August 27, 2021. On January 5, 2022 Oliver I filed a Joint Offer of Settlement and Settlement Agreement. On February 7, 2022, the settlement judge filed a Certification of the Uncontested Offer of Settlement and twelve days later submitted an Order Terminating the Settlement Procedures. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the Joint Offer of Settlement and Settlement Agreement.
E-10 – Hill Top Energy Center LLC (Docket No. ER21-1807-003). On April 30, 2021, Hill Top Energy Center LLC (Hill Top) submitted an initial proposed rate schedule for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control as defined in Schedule 2 of the PJM OATT. PJM filed a timely motion to intervene. On June 29, 2021, the Commission accepted the effective date of the proposed rate schedule, subject to a compliance filing and instituted a Section 206 proceeding to establish a refund effective date, and establish hearing and settlement judge procedures. The Commission’s initial analysis indicated that Hill Top’s proposed rate schedule had not be shown to be just and reasonable. A settlement judge was appointed on July 7, 2021. Hill Top submitted its required compliance filing on August 9, 2021, which the commission accepted by Letter Order on September 17, 2021. On December 16, 2021, Hill Top submitted Motion for Interim Rates, which the settlement judge granted on December 22, 2021. That same day, Hill Top submitted an Offer of Settlement. Trial Staff submitted their comments to the Settlement offer on January 11, 2022. The settlement judged filed a Certification of the Uncontested Offer of Settlement on February 1, 2022 and terminated the settlement procedures on February 11. Agenda item E-10 may be an order on the Joint Offer of Settlement and Settlement Agreement.
E-11 – The Connecticut Light and Power Company (Docket No. ER21-2860-001). On September 9, 2021, the Eversource Energy Service Company (Eversource), on behalf of Connective Light and Power Company filed (CL&P) filed a notice of termination of a generator interconnection agreement between CL&P and Sterling Property, LLC (Sterling). Brookfield Renewable Trading and Marketing LP (BRTM) filed a timely Motion to Intervene on September 22, 2021. Sterling filed a timely Motion to Intervene and Protest on September 30, 2021. Sterling contended that the Commission should to decline to assert jurisdiction over the notice of termination. On October 15, 2021, CL&P filed a Motion for Leave to Answer, and an Answer to Sterling’s protest. On October 25, 2021, Sterling filed a motion for leave to answer, and an answer to CL&P’s answer. On November 8, 2021, the Commission rejected CL&P’s notice of termination because CL&P did not provide adequate justification demonstrating that the Facility has been decommissioned in order to terminate the Interconnection Agreement. Additionally, the Commission rejected Sterling’ contention that FERC should decline to assert jurisdiction over the notice of termination, citing to 18 C.F.R. § 35.15(a). While the Commission found that that CL&P’s notice of termination was premature, FERC emphasized that its determination in this proceeding did not indicate that Sterling retains any interconnection rights under the Interconnection Agreement. On December 8, 2021, Eversource, on behalf of CL&P and BRTM both filed a Request for Rehearing or, in the Alternative Motion for Clarification. On December 20, 2021, Sterling filed a Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer to BRTM’s and CL&P’s Requests for Rehearing, arguing that now valid reason to grant the rehearing was presented. On January 10, 2022, the Commission filed a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law and Providing for Further Consideration. Agenda item E-11 be an order on the original rehearing request.
E-12 – Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company (Docket No. EL22-27-000). The record in Docket No. EL22-27-000 has not yet been populated or initiated. Agenda item E-12 may be an action that is being taken sua sponte by the Commission.
E-13 – Southwest Power Pool, Inc. and American, Electric Power Service Corporation (Docket Nos. ER18-194-000, ER18-195-000). On October 31, 2017, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted on behalf of the AEP West Operating Companies, Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Southwestern Electric Power Company and the AEP West Transmission Companies, AEP Oklahoma Transmission Company, Inc. and AEP Southwestern Transmission Company, Inc. (collectively AEP), two filings for proposed revisions to AEP’s transmission formula rate templates and protocols contained in Addendum 4 and Addendum 12 of Attachment H to SPP’s OATT. The commission accepted the formula rates and protocols, effective January 1, 2018 but subject to refund and established hearing and settlement proceedings. The Commission approved the related Settlement Agreement on June 28, 2019. On May 26, 2020, AEP filed the True-up and Adjustment of the 2019 annual transmission revenue requirements (2020 Annual Update). After discovering errors in the projected revenues to which the actual revenues were compared and a formula error, AEP filed a revised 2020 Annual Update on June 9, 2020 and July 2, 2020, respectively. These delayed updates triggered a delay to the annual review afforded to customers under AEP’s protocols. On February 12, 2021, East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, and Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. (collectively the Joint Customers) filed a Preliminary Challenge and AEP responded on April 9, 2021. Based upon further discussions the Join Customers filed a Formal Challenge to the 2020 Annual Update Filings on May 21, 2021. AEP requested an extension of time on June 2, 2021 to respond to the Joint Customers’ Formal Challenge by July 30, 2021. The Commission granted this extension on June 9, 2021. AEP submitted its Motion for Leave to Respond and Response on July 30, to which the Joint Customer’s filed their response on August 16, 2021. AEP filed an answer in opposition to the Motion for Leave to Respond and Response of Joint Customers on August 31, 2021. On November 1, 2021, AEP filed the 2022 projected annual revenue requirement, which it revised on December 16, 2021, pursuant to SPP’s request that AEP align the projects in this filing with their proposed projects. Agenda item E-13 may be an order on the Joint Customers’ formal challenge and subsequent motion related to AEP’s as filed Annual 2020 Update.
E-14 – Kestrel Acquisition, LLC (Docket No. ER18-1106-002). On March 15, 2018, Kestrel Acquisition, LLC (Kestrel) filed an application for market-based rate authority and an accompanying tariff, which the commission accepted on April 24, 2018. On July 2, 2018, Kestrel filed a Notice of Change in Status that the Commission accepted by letter order on September 28, 2018. More recently, on June 29, 2020, Kestrel filed an updated Market Power Analysis for the Northeast Region in the docket granting Kestrel MBR authority. On August 28, 2020, the Independent Market Monitor for PJM filed a Limited Protest, to which Kestrel filed a Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer on September 14, 2020. On September 17, 2020, the PJM Power Providers Group and Electric Power Supply Associated filed a motion for Leave to Answer and Answer to the Independent Market Monitor’s Limited Protest. On September 29, 2020, the Independent Market Monitor filed an Answer and Motion for a Leave to Answer and PJM filed Comments to the Limited Protest. The Independent Market Monitor filed an Answer and Motion for leave to Answer PJM’s comments on October 14, 2020. On February 19, 2021, PJM filed additional Comments in Response to the Independent Market Monitor’s Answer, to which the Independent Market Monitor Replied on March 2, 2021. On August 20, 2021, the Office of Energy Market Regulation submitted a request for additional information from Kestrel regarding the ownership shares and the identities of certain upstream owners and passive investors. Kestrel responded on September 16, 2021. The Office of Energy market Regulation issued a Deficiency Letter on December 7, 2021 requesting further information regarding interests owned by limited partner investors, ownership shares, and clarifications on certain voting securities held. Kestrel responded on January 6, 2022. Agenda item E-14 may be an order regarding Kestrel’s Updated Market Power Analysis.
E-15 – Irradiant Partners, LP (Docket No. EL22-8-000). On November 1, 2021, Irradiant Partners, LP (Irradiant) submitted a Petition for Declaratory Order, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and Section 292.203(d)(2) of the Commission’s regulations, to grant waiver of the requirement to submit re-certifications for 185 non-operational qualifying facilities (QFs). Irradiant stated that the QFs are currently in development due to an upstream change of control and therefore a waiver of QF Form No. 556 recertification is warranted. Agenda item E-15 may be an order on the Petition by Irradiant.
E-16 – Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket No. EL21-98-000). On August 23, 2021, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) submitted a Petition for Declaratory Order, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, to approve the customer portion return of the License Agreement Sale Proceeds from the SBA Transaction. PG&E stated that the return comports with a revenue sharing mechanism previously approved by the Commission in 1999 for the sale of secondary products and services. On September 22, 2021, the Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton, Pasadena, and Riverside, California (collectively, the Six Cities) filed a Protest of the PG&E filing, asserting that multiple issues arising from the proposed customer portion of the return may result in unjust and unreasonable outcomes. Six Cities specifically references that flowing through termination payments to ratepayers may be inconsistent with the original PG&E proposal in 1999 and therefore contravenes the intent of prior Commission approval. Agenda item E-16 may be an order on the Petition by PG&E.
Gas
G-1 – Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC and Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC v. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Docket No. RP22-433-000); Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC v. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Docket No. RP22-435-000). On December 21, 2021, Range Resources-Appalachia and Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (collectively, Complainants) submitted a Joint Complaint, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, against Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern). In the Joint Complaint, Complainants assert that Texas Eastern has failed to provide contracted-for firm service to the primary delivery point. Complainants state that, for two separate periods in 2019 and 2021, respectively, Texas Eastern did not deliver gas at the Adair Interconnect at the minimum pressure necessary into the Columbia Gulf pipeline system. Complainants request that the Commission require Texas Eastern to comply with the obligations of its certificate as granted, namely that there will be no future failures and that confirmed deliveries of gas will be honored and executed as scheduled. On January 10, 2022, Texas Eastern filed an Answer and Motion to Dismiss, stating that it has fully satisfied its service obligations to Complainants and that the pressure obligation under the effective Tariff provisions is to deliver at prevailing line pressures at the time unless otherwise specified in a separate executed service agreement. Agenda item G-1 may be an order on the Joint Complaint.
G-2 – Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Docket No. RP21-1001-002). On August 31, 2021, the Commission issued an Order Directing to Show Cause (Show Cause Order) against Texas Eastern pursuant to Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). The Show Cause Order required Texas Eastern to explain why Section 31 of the General Terms & Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff remains just and reasonable. On September 30, 2021, Texas Eastern filed a Response to the Show Cause Order indicating that the Commission has not altered its policy stance materially since the Tariff provisions were effectuated. Namely, Texas Eastern affirms that the Tariff provisions remain just and reasonable, particularly due to the use of an impartial mechanism for basing outages requiring reservation charge credits in the context of a pre-announced force majeure event as well as how the Tariff eliminates or adjusts periods in which shippers’ use of the system was constrained in its calculation of historical usage. However, Texas Eastern offered certain clarifying changes to Section 31 of its Tariff in order to adhere to directives outlined in the Show Cause Order, but maintains that such revisions are minor. Agenda item G-2 may be an order on the proposed limited Tariff revisions by Texas Eastern in accordance with the Show Cause Order.
G-3 – Northern Natural Gas Company (Docket No. RP21-957-000). On July 6, 2021, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) submitted a Petition, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, for Limited Waiver of Tariff Provisions. The waiver request would allow a firm transportation, non-affiliated shipper to resolve an imbalance by using the imbalance-to-storage mechanism outside of the timelines set forth in the Tariff. Specifically, Northern states that the Petition would accommodate a two-day late request proffered in May of 2021 to resolve the imbalance rather than cashing out the imbalance and minimize potential impacts to the customer. Agenda item G-3 may be an order on the Petition.
Hydro
H-1 – The Nevada Hydro Company, Inc. (Docket No. P-14227-005). On January 7, 2022, The Nevada Hydro Company (Nevada Hydro) filed a Request for Rehearing of the December 9, 2021 order issued by the Commission denying the license application for the Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project No. 14227. In the request, Nevada Hydro states that new information is being provided and may be instructive in a re-evaluation of the license application, and alternatively, requests for a temporary stay until July 1, 2022 so that new management of the company can configure and discuss new Project configurations with appropriate governmental agencies with jurisdiction. Agenda item H-1 may be an order on the rehearing request.
H-2 – Alabama Power Company (Docket No. P-15229-000). On July 27, 2021, Alabama Power Company (Alabama Power) submitted an Application for a Preliminary Permit for the proposed Chandler Mountain Pumped Storage Project. Alabama Power furnished the preliminary application in order to secure and maintain priority of application for the license while undertaking studies and activities to determine the feasibility of the Chandler Mountain Project and, if the project is deemed viable, to prepare a formal development application. Agenda item H-2 may be an order on the preliminary permit application.
Certificates
C-1 – Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities (Docket No. PL18-1-000); Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Natural Gas Infrastructure Project Reviews (Docket No. PL21-3-000). On February 18, 2022, FERC issued its Updated Policy Statement on Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities (Updated Certificate Policy Statement) and its Interim Policy Statement on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Natural Gas Infrastructure Project Reviews (Interim GHG Policy Statement). For more information on the Updated Certificate Policy Statement and the Interim GHG Policy Statement (collectively, the Policy Statements), please refer to our prior article on these topics published on February 28, 2022. On March 3, 2022, the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources (Committee) held a full Committee hearing to question FERC’s Chairman and his fellow Commissioners about the Policy Statements. Committee members who challenged or disagreed with these policy statements focused on recent events in Ukraine and the importance of domestic natural gas supplies and new pipelines to both domestic and global security; the inability of the Commissioners to reach consensus here; the propriety of retroactively implementing these policy statements to pending applications; and whether the policy statements’ treatment of upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions exceeds FERC’s authority under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Natural Gas Act. Agenda item C-1 may be an order by FERC delaying the effective date of the Policy Statements in order to address one or more of the Committee’s concerns through subsequent revisions to these policy statements.
C-2 – Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Docket No. CP20-527-000). On September 24, 2020, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf) filed with FERC an Abbreviated Application (Application) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for its East Lateral Xpress Project. The East Lateral Xpress Project consists of the construction of two (2) new compressor stations, a new meter station, approximately eight (8) miles of new 30-inch diameter natural gas pipeline, two (2) new mainline valves, a tie-in facility, launcher and receiver facilities, and other auxiliary appurtenant facilities. FERC initially issued an Environmental Assessment for the East Lateral Xpress Project on March 16, 2021, which concluded that the East Lateral Xpress Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On May 27, 2021, FERC issued a notice of intent to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the East Lateral Xpress Project to assist in FERC’s consideration of that project’s contribution to climate change. On September 21, 2021, FERC released the final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the East Lateral 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 FERC staff continues to be unable to determine significance with regard to climate change impacts. Agenda item C-2 may be an order on the Application and, depending on FERC’s action with respect to agenda item C-1, may or may not implement the Policy Statements discussed above.
C-3 – Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Docket No. CP20-50-000) Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (Docket No. CP20-51-000). On February 7, 2020, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) filed separate applications for the Evangeline Pass Expansion Project. Tennessee filed an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, and maintain certain compression facilities and looping pipelines in Louisiana, and lease capacity from Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (SNG). On the same day, in a separate application, SNG requested authorization to construct, install, own, lease, operate, and maintain certain facilities in Mississippi and Louisiana in order to add 1,100,000 dekatherms per day of capacity to the existing SNG pipeline system and requested approval to abandon by lease this new capacity to Tennessee. FERC initially issued an Environmental Assessment for the Evangeline Pass Expansion Project on August 24, 2020, which concluded that the Evangeline Pass Expansion Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On June 30, 2021, FERC issued a notice of intent to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Evangeline Pass Expansion Project to assist in FERC’s consideration of that project’s contribution to climate change. On October 8, 2021, FERC released the final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the Evangeline Pass Expansion Project. The Final EIS concluded that, with the exception of climate change impacts, approval of the Evangeline Pass Expansion Project would not result in significant environmental impacts given the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIS. The Final EIS stated that FERC staff continues to be unable to determine significance with regard to climate change impacts. Agenda item C-3 may be an order on the applications of Tennessee and SNG and, depending on FERC’s action with respect to agenda item C-1, may or may not implement the Policy Statements discussed above.
C-4 – Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (Docket No. CP20-48-000). On February 3, 2020, Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois) with FERC an Abbreviated Application (Application) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for its Enhancement by Compression Project (ExC Project). The ExC Project consists of: one (1) new 12,000 horsepower (hp) compressor unit, cooling equipment, and associated facilities at each of Iroquois’s existing Athems (Greene County, New York) and Dover (Dutchess County, New York) Compressor Stations; two (2) new 12,000 hp compressor units, cooling equipment, and associated facilities at its existing Brookfield Compressor Station (Fairfield County, Connecticut); and additional gas cooling and related equipment at its existing Milford Compressor Station (New Haven County, Connecticut). FERC initially issued an Environmental Assessment for the ExC Project on September 29, 2020, which concluded that the ExC Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On May 27, 2021, FERC issued a notice of intent to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the ExC Project to assist in FERC’s consideration of that project’s contribution to climate change. On November 12, 2021, FERC released the final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the ExC Project. The Final EIS concluded that, with the exception of climate change impacts, approval of the ExC Project would not result in significant environmental impacts given the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIS. The Final EIS stated that FERC 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 and, depending on FERC’s action with respect to agenda item C-1, may or may not implement the Policy Statements discussed above.
C-5 – Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Docket Nos. CP15-554-004, CP15-554-005, CP15-554-006, CP15-554-007, CP15-554-009); Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc. (Docket Nos. CP15-555-003, CP15-555-004, CP15-555-005); Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (Docket No. CP15-555-007). On October 13, 2017, FERC authorized Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) and Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc. (DETI) to construct and operate the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project, respectively. On July 5, 2020, Dominion Energy and Duke Energy (Atlantic’s parent companies) issued a news release announcing the cancellation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. As a result, EGTS – as successor to DETI’s interest in the Supply Header Project – cancelled the Supply Header Project. Atlantic and EGTS subsequently requested authorization to implement the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Restoration Project and the Supply Header Restoration Project (collectively, the Restoration Projects) pursuant to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Disposition and Restoration Plan filed by Atlantic with FERC on January 4, 2021 and the Supply Header Restoration Plan filed by EGTS with FERC on November 20, 2020, respectively. The Restoration Projects propose to stabilize lands affected by previous construction efforts for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project, respectively, and to facilitate cessation of all project-related activities. On December 17, 2021, FERC released the final supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) for the Restoration Projects. The Final SEIS concluded that the proposed actions, with the additional mitigation measures recommended in the Final SEIS, would continue to avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant levels, with the exception of climate change impacts, for which FERC staff is unable to determine significance. Agenda item C-5 may be an order on the Restoration Projects and, depending on FERC’s action with respect to agenda item C-1, may or may not implement the Policy Statements discussed above.
C-6 – Midship Pipeline Company, LLC (Docket No. CP17-458-015). On August 13, 2018, FERC issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity (Certificate Order) authorizing Midship Pipeline Company, LLC (Midship) to construct and operate the Midship Project, an approximately 200 mile long interstate natural gas pipeline system in Oklahoma. On July 3, 2019, due to Midship’s failure to correct several instances of noncompliance with the environmental conditions of its Certificate Order, FERC staff issued a stop work order, halting construction on segments of the Midship Project. On July 31, 2019, after determining that Midship had satisfied the directives set forth in the stop work order, FERC staff authorized Midship to resume activities along the specified segments of the Midship Project. Midship completed installation of the project facilities in March 2020. On April 16, 2020, FERC staff authorized Midship to place the Midship Project facilities into service, based on FERC staff’s determination that restoration of the Midship Project right-of-way was proceeding satisfactorily. Thereafter, notwithstanding the fact that FERC staff and its environmental compliance monitor had identified and directed Midship and its environmental inspection team to address and resolve various issues regarding restoration along the project right-of-way, there continued to be outstanding restoration concerns on agricultural lands throughout the project area. As a result, on March 18, 2021, FERC issued an order on environmental compliance, directing Midship to take immediate action to remedy unresolved restoration issues on certain landowner tracts along the Midcontinent Supply Header Interstate Pipeline Project (Midship Project) right-of-way, including tract GR-0338.000, belonging to the owners of Sandy Creek Farms. In addition, the March 18 order, while explaining that FERC lacks legal authority to impose compensation for damages, strongly recommended Midship engage FERC’s Dispute Resolution Service to assist in negotiations between Midship and certain landowners, including the owners of Sandy Creek Farms, regarding issues arising from construction activities on their property. Thereafter, the Dispute Resolution Service facilitated settlement with numerous landowners, with the exception of the owners of Sandy Creek Farm. On December 16, 2021, FERC issued an Order Establishing Procedures Before an Administrative Law Judge (Order). The Order finds that Midship and the owners of Sandy Creek have reached an impasse with respect to a specific restoration plan or cost thereof, and therefore establishes procedures before an administrative law judge (ALJ) to determine: (1) the methods and scope of work activities remaining in order to restore the Sandy Creek Farms property in accordance with the Certificate Order (tract GR-0338.000) and (2) the reasonable cost to complete such activities. The Order re-emphasizes that FERC cannot award damages, but states that developing a record as to the necessary measures and their cost will assist FERC in evaluating what further remediation is required and what further steps to take to resolve the issues here. On January 18, 2022, Midship filed a limited request for rehearing of the Order, asking FERC to vacate the portion of the Order which directs an ALJ to determine the reasonable cost to complete the restoration of land belonging to Sandy Creek Farms on the grounds that that portion of the Order is ultra vires because FERC has no authority to direct payment of compensation for damages to landowners or to assess the costs of those damages. Agenda item C-6 may be an order on rehearing.
C-7 – Northern Natural Gas Company (Docket No. CP21-28-000). On January 13, 2021, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) filed an application (Application) for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of FERC’s regulations to: (1) establish an approximately 0.5-mile buffer zone around the Redfield Storage Facility in Dallas County, Iowa, in order to comply with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulations; (2) designate five (5) geological formations as natural gas-containing vertical buffer zones (these formations were historically considered non-natural gas storage formations and are not of sufficient reservoir quality or extent to warrant certification as gas storage formations); and (3) to recognize the inclusion of the Lower Eau Claire formation into the geologically continuous Mt. Simon A zone of the Mt. Simon gas storage reservoir. On March 25, 2021, FERC issued an Environmental Assessment Report concluding that Northern’s proposal would have no environmental impacts because it involves no construction, operation, or abandonment of any facilities; therefore, FERC determined that no National Environmental Policy Act analysis is required. Agenda item C-7 may be an order on the Application.
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
