Summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's monthly open meeting to be held on March 20, 2025, pursuant to the sunshine notice released on March 13, 2025.
In this issue…
- Electric Items
- Hydro Items
- Certificates items
Electric
E-1 – Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER24-2184-000; ER24-2184-001; ER24-2185-000; ER24-2185-001). On June 4, 2024, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff), Bylaws, and Membership Agreement in order to facilitate the commitment of numerous entities in the Western Interconnection to join SPP as Transmission Owners, to place their respective transmission facilities under the functional control of SPP, and to begin taking service under the Tariff. A number of parties filed motions to intervene, as well as a number of parties filed comments and protests, including by Black Hills Service Company, LLC; Colorado Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate (COUCA); Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CoPUC); Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative; Electrical District No. 4 of Pinal County, Arizona, Electric District Number Seven of Maricopa County, Arizona, Maricopa County Municipal Watern Conservation District No. 1, and Wellton Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage District; Navajo Tribal Utility Authority; Platte River Power Authority; Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo); Southwest Power Pool Market Monitoring Unit; Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association; Western Area Power Administration; Western Power Trading Forum. On July 23, 2024, SPP filed an Answer to the single protest and various comments submitted in the docket before that date. On August 20, 2024, the COUCA filed a Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer to SPP's Answer. On November 25, 2024, Eric Blank, Chair of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CoPUC) filed comments. On January 3, 2025, SPP filed a limited answer to respond to the requests made in Chairman Blank's Comments, stating that, although it did not agree with or concede to any of the arguments made in the Chairman Blank Comments, SPP generally agrees with the ultimate request being made in those comments, which is that SPP continue stakeholder efforts on revisions that will provide a clear path to interconnection of projects that serve native load and allow Colorado utilities to continue to meet their resource adequacy and emission reduction needs. Agenda item E-1 may be an order on SPP's proposed revisions to its Tariff, Bylaws, and Membership Agreement that would allow Western Interconnection entities to join SPP.
E-2 – Avista Corporation (Docket Nos. ER24-756-000; ER24-756-001). On December 22, 2023, Avista Corporation (Avista) submitted a compliance filing in accordance with Order No. 2023 in Docket No. ER24-756 (December 22 Compliance Filing), which remains pending before the Commission. On May 16, 2024, Avista supplemented the December 22 Compliance Filing as required by Order No. 2023-A including additional revisions to Avista's Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP) and Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) and their associated appendices. Agenda item E-2 may be an order on Avista's Order Nos. 2023 and 2023-A compliance filing.
E-3 – Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Docket Nos. ER24-1554-000; ER24-1554-001). On March 18, 2024, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Duke Energy Progress, LLC (together, Duke Energy) submitted its Order No. 2023 compliance filing reflecting revisions to its LGIP and Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA). On April 8, 2024, the Public Interest Organizations (PIO) submitted comments seeking additional clarification on these proposals to ensure the Compliance Filing meets or exceeds the requirements of Order No. 2023. On May 24, 2024, Duke Energy submitted a Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer of in response to the PIO's April 8, 2024 comments. On May 15, 2024, Duke Energy submitted further revisions in compliance with Order No. 2023-A. On June 5, 2024, the PIOs filed another set of comments in response to the May 15, 2024 Order No. 2023-A revisions submitted by Duke Energy. On June 5, 2024, the NCUC filed a Joint Partial Protest, arguing that while Duke Energy's revisions largely reflect the requirements of Order No. 2023 and Order No. 2023-A, under the circumstances presented in North Carolina along the seam of Duke Energy's service territories with PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), the tariff amendments may lead to unjust and unreasonable rates for wholesale and retail ratepayers and for affected system interconnection customers. NCUC contended that the tariff amendments fail to provide a process for Duke to demonstrate to the Commission that a deviation from the Order No. 2003 pricing policy for affected system network upgrades is warranted. On June 14, 2024 and June 17, 2024, respectively, Duke Energy filed a Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer in response to the PIO comments and the NCUC Partial Protest. Agenda item E-3 may be an order on Duke Energy's Order Nos. 2023 and 2023-A compliance filings.
E-4 – Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Docket No. ER24-2043-000). On May 16, 2024, Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric) filed modifications to its Standard LGIP, LGIA, SGIP, and Standard Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (together, Generator Interconnection Procedures) to comply with the directives of FERC Order Nos. 2023 and 2023-A. Basin Electric's LGIP and LGIA are included as Attachments O and P, respectively, to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff), which governs certain of Basin Electric's transmission facilities located in the Western Interconnection (MBPP Tariff). Basin Electric's SGIP and SGIA are included as Attachments Q and R, respectively, to the MBPP Tariff. Agenda item E-4 may be an order on Basin Electric's Order Nos. 2023 and 2023-A compliance filing.
E-5 – Lucky Corridor, LLC (Docket No. ER24-2036-000). On May 16, 2024, Lucky Corridor, LLC (Lucky Corridor) filed a revised Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP) and appendices, including a revised Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA), and a revised Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) and appendices, including the Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA). The Commission previously accepted Lucky Corridor's deviations from the pro forma Open Access Transmission Tariff ("OATT") which take into account that transmission service (and by extension, interconnection service) on its projects is limited to those customers who satisfy Lucky Corridor's commercial criteria. Lucky Corridor incorporated changes to the LGIP and SGIP that the Commission required pursuant to Order No. 2023 and requested only such deviations from the Commission's pro forma LGIP as necessary to reflect Lucky Corridor's business model as a merchant transmission provider. Specifically, Lucky Corridor proposed to retain the serial customer study queue approach for its LGIP rather than transition to cluster studies provided for in the Order and similarly proposed not to incorporate penalties for customers that withdraw from the queue. Lucky Corridor contended that these deviations from the pro forma LGIP are just and reasonable, and consistent with or superior to the requirements of Order No. 2023, as they would provide greater certainty to interconnection customers, ensure that customers receive accurate information regarding their interconnection requests, and would avoid penalizing customers who leave the interconnection queue because they do not meet Lucky Corridor's commercial criteria. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on Lucky Corridor's proposed deviations from the pro forma LGIP.
E-6 – Ponderosa Power, LLC v. NorthWestern Corporation (Docket No. EL24-147-000). On September 26, 2024, Ponderosa Power LLC (Ponderosa Power) filed a complaint against NorthWestern Corporation d/b/a North Western Energy (NorthWestern) alleging discriminatory generator interconnection practices that require Ponderosa pay approximately $23 million in network upgrades as a result of system overload that when caused by NorthWestern and not an independent generation owner is resolved by curtailment, load shed and/or generation redispatch. On October 7, 2024, NorthWestern filed an Unopposed Motion for Request for extension of Time until October 31, 2024, to answer the Complaint. On October 16, 2024, the Commission issued a Notice of Extension of Time. On October 31, 2024, NorthWestern filed an Answer, arguing Ponderosa's claims should be dismissed as unfounded, without merit and failing to meet the requirements of Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. On November 15, 2024, Ponderosa Power filed a Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer, submitting that good cause supported acceptance of its Answer providing additional details for an accurate and complete record to counteract NorthWestern's "false or misleading" assertions. Ponderosa Power requested in its Answer that the Commission order NorthWestern remove any network upgrade charges assigned to Ponderosa associated with an obligation to replace the replace the Broadview Switchyard or upgrade the Broadview – Painted Robe 100 kV line. On December 2, 2024, NorthWestern Corporation filed an Answer, saying that Ponderosa Power's Motion for Leave to Answer should be denied as Ponderosa Power's Answer added nothing to the record. Agenda item E-6 may be an order on the complaint by Ponderosa Power against NorthWestern.
E-7 – Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. ER24-2906-000). On August 28, 2024, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) filed revisions to Attachment X of the Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) to incorporate a mark-to auction (MTA) collateral requirement for its Transmission Congestion Rights (TCR) markets to be effective on May 1, 2025. On August 29, 2024, Evergy Kansans Central Inc., Evergy Metro, Inc. and Evergy Missouri West, Inc. filed a Motion to Intervene. A number of parties filed motions to intervene. On September 16, 2024, Southwest Power Pool Market Monitoring Unit (MMU) filed a Motion to Intervene and Comments, moving to intervene in support of SPP, and commenting that the incorporation of MTA collateral requirements would decrease credit default risk from TCR holders by remarking collateral requirements based on forward-looking auction prices. MMU commented that the incorporation will not require major changes to SPP's TCR market or credit process and can be implemented to realize benefits immediately. On September 18, 2024, DC Energy LLC filed Comments that SPP's proposal does not qualify as an MTA auction or mechanism or comparable alternative as it fails to incorporate the increased risk of default that results from a TCR portfolio that declines in value and does not address the credit default risk that the Commission in its Show Cause Order in the section 206 Show Cause Proceeding in Docket No. EL22-65-000. On September 18, 2024, the Energy Trading Institute filed a Protest, saying that SPP's proposal falls short of a true MTA mechanism or comparable alternative and as such the proposal incorporates increased risk of default from a TCR portfolio that declines in value. On October 1, 2024, MMU filed Supplemental Comments and Limited Protest, noting that in its original comments, MMU understood that the collateral requirements for all TCRs would be assessed and remarked during monthly auctions. However, the collateral requirement for seasonal TCRs sold in the annual auction held in May will not be reassessed and remarked until after that annual auction. MMU commented that the SPP proposal does not appear consistent with the Commission's Show Cause Order of Docket No. EL22-65-000. On October 23, 2024, SPP filed a Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer, replying that ETI and DC Energy's comments would require "nothing short of a complete TCR market redesign" with more frequent balance of planning period auctions, and that while MMU believes the MTA should update more frequently, SPP argues its existing design complies with the Commission's directives. On October 30, 2024, Energy Trading Institute filed a Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer responding that SPP fails to address fundamental issues surrounding collateral risk management for its TCR markets and asking for additional auctions aligning with the forward TCR positions. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the proposed revisions to the PJM OATT.
E-8 – American Municipal Power, Inc., Office of the People's Counsel for the District of Columbia, and the PJM Industrial Customer Coalition v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. EL22-80-001); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. EL22-85-001). On August 26, 2024, the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners1 submitted a Request for Rehearing of the Commission's July 25, 2024 Order addressing proceedings initiated pursuant to FPA section 206 concerning the requirements for and applicability of Designated Entity Agreements in PJM. The Commission's July 25, 2024, Order granted in part and denied in part a complaint filed by American by American Municipal Power, Inc., Office of the People's Counsel for the District of Columbia, and the PJM Industrial Customer Coalition pursuant to sections 206, 306, and 309 of the FPA, against PJM regarding the scope of requirements under Schedule 6, section 1.5.8 of the Operating Agreement to execute DEAs. The Commission's July 25, 2024, Order also granted in part and denied in part a section 206 filing by JPM asking the Commission to revise Schedule 6, section 1.5.8 of the Operating Agreement governing PJM's RTEP process and associated requirements for DEAs to clarify the application of DEA requirements consistent with Order No. 1000. On September 26, 2024, FERC issued a Notice of Denial of Rehearing. On December 4, 2024, the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners filed a Petition for Review in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit of the Commission's July 25, 2024, Order and the December 4, 2024, Notice of Denial. On December 9, 2024, PJM Industrial Customer Coalition filed a Motion to Intervene in the above-mentioned US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit proceeding, arguing that as an association of large industrial and commercial end-users in the region, they have electricity-consuming facilities in the region that will be subject to the Order and Notice and will be materially impacted by the Court's disposition in the appeal. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners' request for rehearing.
E-9 – Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. ER24-2397-001). On November 4, 2024, the Market Monitoring Unit (MMU) of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) filed a request for a rehearing of the Commission's November 4, 2024 Order, in which the Commission determined SPP's tariff revisions to a Winter Season Resource Adequacy Requirement (Winter RAR) were just and reasonable. The MMU requests the Commission to order SPP to make compliance filings to define "forced outage" and to include its outage study procedures in the tariff at-issue. MMU argues SPP's definition of "Authorized Outage" is instead unjust and unreasonable since it excludes, and does not define, forced outages. MMU argues that absent this definition in the tariff or implementation documents, SPP has wide discretion to determine what constitutes an automatic or forced outage. In the Commission's November 4 Order, the Commission disagreed with the notion that SPP needed to define "forced outage", as forced outages are not studied and hence cannot fall within the definition of Authorized Outages. The Commission also found that MMU's argument is out of scope as SPP's filings do not modify how SPP studies outage requests. MMU however argues that (1) the November 4 Order is arbitrary and capricious as the Commission relied on the misleading fact that SPP does not study outages, and (2) that the Filing violated the rule of reason for failing to include outage scheduling procedures in the tariff, as required by Section 205(c) of the FPA. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the rehearing request.
E-10 – Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska and the Colorado Cities of Aspen and Glenwood Springs and the Town of Center, Colorado v. Public Service Company Colorado (Docket No. EL24-74-001). On March 10, 2025, the above-captioned municipal entities (collectively, the Colorado Cities) filed a joint petition to the US Court of Appeals for the District of the District of Columbia to review the Commission's Order issued on November 7, 2024. In the Order, the Commission noted that the Colorado Cities filed a complaint against Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) in relation to PSCo's proposed Colorado Power Pathway transmission project. In the complaint, the Colorado Cities alleged that PSCo will unjustly and unreasonably allocate transmission costs for the transmission project on the Colorado Cities, and that PSCo violated its Open Access Transmission Tariffs, as well as local and regional planning requirements. The Colorado Cities argue that they do not benefit from the transmission project, and that even if they did, there are other beneficiaries who have not been allocated costs. Motions to intervene were field by CORE Electric Cooperative, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Solar Energy industries Association, Grand Valley Power, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., LSP Transmissions Holdings II, LLC, and others. On March 21, 2024, Xcel, on behalf of PSCo, filed a motion to dismiss and answer. Thereafter, on March 21, 2024, Americans for a Clean Energy Grid filed a motion to intervene. Colorado Cities then filed an answer PSCo's answer and motion to dismiss on April 12, 2024. Xcel later filed an answer to Colorado Cities' answer on April 29, 2024. The Commission thereafter denied the complaint on November 7, 2024. Agenda item E-10 may be an order in response to the Colorado Cities' complaint.
E-11 – Evergy Kansas Central, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER24-3107-002, ER24-3108-001, ER24-3114-001, and ER24-3115-001). The Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (KEPCo), Kansas Municipal Energy Agency (KMEA), KPP Energy (KPP), and McPherson, Kansas, Board of Public Utilities (McPherson) (collectively, the Kansas Customers) request a rehearing of the Commission's November 29, 2024 Order in which the Commission: (1) accepted the revised depreciation rates in the Evergy Kansas Central, Inc. wholesale contracts, (2) accepted the transmission formula rates of Evergy KC, Evergy Kansas South, Inc. and Evergy Metro, Inc.; and (3) suspended the revised rates for a nominal period. This follows after Evergy and SPP, on behalf of Evergy, requested an update to the depreciation rates of Evergy's transmission formula rates. In the filing, Evergy requests to apply the revised depreciation rates for the 2024 calendar year. The Commission accepted the proposed changes, effective December 1, 2024, with waivers as deemed appropriate. Despite protests from the Kansas Customers following their filing on October 28, 2024, the Commission accepted Evergy's revised rates in its November 29 Order. The Kansas Customers argue that the Commission erred in fining that Evergy's transmission rates may include "revised depreciation rates for eleven months of service already provided to transmission customers in violation of the filed rate doctrine and the rule against retroactive ratemaking[.]" As such, the Kansas Customers request the Commission to grant a rehearing on this issue and order Evergy to apply the revised transmission depreciation rates on a "prospective basis only." Agenda item E-11 may be an order on the rehearing request.
E-12 – Evergy Kansas Central, Inc. (Docket No. ER24-3107-001). On December 20, 2024, Evergy Kansas Central (EKC) submitted a compliance filing in response to the Commission's November 29 Order. EKC thereby requests the Commission to accept the compliance filing. On September 15, 2024, EKC filed a request to update EKC's formula rate templates wherein EKC proposed to update depreciation rates of the formula rates contained in EKC's power contract. On November 29, the Commission conditionally accepted the revised tariff sheets, subject to additional compliance filings, refund, hearing and settlement. The Commission thereafter requested EKC to submit, within 30 days of the November 29 Order, revisions that reflect the depreciation rates. EKC thereafter submitted this filing to satisfy the Commissions' request. Agenda item E-12 may be an order responding to EKC's filing.
E-13 – Welcome Solar, LLC, Welcome Solar II, LLC and Welcome Solar III, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. EL25-5-000); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket Nos. ER25-453-000, ER25-454-000, ER25-455-000). On November 15, 2024, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) filed three notices of cancellation with respect to executed Interconnection Services Agreements (ISAs) between itself and the respective above-captioned Welcome Solar entities. In the filings, PJM stated that Welcome Solar did not meet the milestones for: acquisition of major electrical equipment; completion of substantial site work; or delivery of major electrical equipment. Per the ISAs, the commercial operation milestone date had been December 31, 2023. PJM indicated that Welcome Solar had been provided with a notice of Breach of the ISA terms and had failed to cure the Breach. Accordingly, PJM requested cancellation of the ISAs, effective January 15, 2025. Separately, Welcome Solar filed a complaint against PJM, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). On February 3, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and the Notices of Cancellation, stating that PJM and Welcome Solar had reached an agreement to amend the Commercial Operation Date milestone as well as the Delivery of Major Equipment milestone in each of the ISAs. The new deadline for the Substantial Sitework Completion milestone is proposed to be July 31, 2025, whereupon Welcome Solar will have been required to finish the foundation work, pile installation, trenching, and underground utilities installation for each of the facilities. Agenda item E-13 may be an order on the Joint Motion.
E-14 – Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. EL24-61-001); Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. EL24-85-001). On January 23, 2024, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU) filed a complaint against the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) and the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP), pursuant to sections 206, 306, and 309 of the FPA. In the complaint, MDU alleged that MISO and SPP have violated the terms of the Joint Operating Agreement between MISO and SPP (JOA) by conducting unwarranted market-to-market (M2M) coordination of congestion on a transmission line, which may have resulted in MDU overpaying for congestion costs. MDU requested that Commission remedy the overpayment by directing MISO and SPP to cease the M2M coordination; directing MISO to refund MDU the duplicative payments; and order MISO and SPP to revise the JOA to require cessation of M2M coordination in certain circumstances (i.e., when it is deemed to be ineffective in managing congestion on the subject flowgate). MISO and SPP submitted respective responses to the complaint on February 12, 2024. For its part, MISO contended that it had timely objected to the improper application of the M2M coordination protocol as implemented by SPP and agreed with MDU that prompt Commission action is necessary to remove the flowgate from the M2M process. In its response, SPP stated that the Commission should deny the complaint and direct the parties to focus on making future improvements to the M2M coordination process. On September 10, 2024, the Commission issued an order denying both complaints against SPP, finding that neither MDU nor MISO sufficiently demonstrated that SPP acted unreasonably in declining to grant consent to remove the transmission flowgate from the M2M coordination process. On October 10, 2024, respectively, MDU and MISO filed requests for rehearing of the September 10 order. Agenda item E-14 may be an order on the rehearing requests.
E-15 – Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. ER24-1586-001). On March 20, 2024, MISO submitted a petition for Commission authorization to waive the 365-day limitation period for modifications to Settlement Statements as provided for in the SPP Tariff. In the petition, MISO stated that, even though SPP's Tariff contains an exemption so that SPP will resettle Operating Days—as required by either the Commission or by court order—the waiver is necessary to preserve MISO's potential right to repayment outside of that avenue. In particular, MISO claimed that the waiver would allow the adjustment of certain past M2M settlements under the MISO and SPP JOA, such as the complaint in the proceeding for agenda item E-14. On April 10, 2024, SPP filed comments to the petition, stating that the requested waiver does not have any practical viability. Specifically, SPP asserts that a proposal for retroactive refunds would contravene the filed rate doctrine as well as the Commission's rule barring retroactive ratemaking. On September 10, 2024, the Commission issued an order denying the petition, finding that the waiver request is moot, due to the denial of the MDU and MISO complaints with respect to M2M coordination in SPP, and that ultimately, the resettlements will not occur. On October 10, 2024, MISO and MDU filed respective requests for rehearing of the September 10 order. Agenda item E-15 may be an order on the rehearing requests.
E-16 – California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket No. ER25-526-000); EDF Trading North America LLC (Docket No. ER21-2579-000). On July 29, 2021, EDF Trading North America LLC (EDFT) submitted a request, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, to recover prudently incurred fuel costs that were not reimbursed through California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) market revenues on February 16, 2021. In the request, EDFT stated that CAISO used gas prices below the actual gas costs incurred when it committed two units through the Residual Unit Commitment process. Prior to submitting the request to the Commission, EDFT sought to recover the costs—associated with startup and operating at minimum load—with CAISO directly, but CAISO denied the request. On August 19, 2021, CAISO filed a protest, characterizing the request as an "after-the-fact" reimbursement that does not meet two prerequisites under the CAISO Tariff in order to receive an uplift payment. CAISO indicated it did not oppose the claim outright, but it would require time to validate the calculation with respect to the actual cost incurred (less the revenues that EDFT received) from the CAISO markets. On March 7, 2024, the Commission issued an order granting the request for recovery of fuel costs and establishing the matter for settlement judge procedures. In the order, the Commission found that EDFT was entitled to recover fuel costs under the CAISO Tariff. On November 22, 2024, CAISO submitted an Offer of Settlement purporting to resolve the outstanding material issues, including a payment of $528,000 provided to EDFT. On January 2, 2025, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order certifying the uncontested settlement. Agenda item E-16 may be an order on the request for the recovery of fuel costs.
E-17 – FirstEnergy Service Company and Potomac Edison Company (Docket No. ER25-824-000). On December 23, 2024, FirstEnergy Service Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, The Potomac Edison Company (collectively, FirstEnergy), submitted a refund report to comply with the Commission's directives in Old Dominion Elec. Coop. v. The Potomac Edison Co., 189 FERC ¶ 61,076. The refund report covered overcharges made to Old Dominion Electric Cooperative. Agenda item E-17 may be an order on the FirstEnergy refund report.
Hydro
H-1 – Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket No. P-606-042). On March 13, 2009, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed an application to surrender the license of the Kilarc-Cow Creek Project, including a proposed decommissioning plan with protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. On August 18, 2009, the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) received the water quality certification request, pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), associated with the license surrender. On April 9, 2018, the State Water Board issued an order denying, without prejudice, the water quality certification request by PG&E. On May 15, 2019, PG&E filed an application for declaratory order requesting the Commission to determine that the State Water Board had waived its certification authority. In the ensuing months, prior to the issuance of an order by the Commission, the State Water Board issued a final water quality certification for the license surrender with a total of 47 conditions. On March 19, 2020, the Commission issued an order, finding that the State Water Board had waived its certification authority. On June 22, 2010, the Commission issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the final EIS on August 16, 2011. The Commission released a supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) on December 3, 2021, in order to address certain changes during the previous 10 years. Specifically, the supplemental EA recommended including certain conditions from the State Water Board order. On October 17, 2024, the Commission issued an order on the application approving the license surrender for the project as well as instructing PG&E to comply with the conditions delineated in the supplemental EA. On November 15, 2024, PG&E filed a request for clarification of the October 17 order, stating that the Commission did not furnish adequate information as to how PG&E is to comply, in practice, with those conditions. In the request for clarification, PG&E requested that the Commission rule on its exclusive authority under the FPA (i.e., the public interest standard) without delegating such authority to the a state water quality agency that has been found to have waived its CWA authority. Agenda item H-1 may be an order on the request for clarification.
Certificates
C-1 – Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C. (Docket No. CP24-124-000). On April 8, 2024, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C. (CIG) submitted an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), pursuant to Section 7(c) and (b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). In the CPCN application, CIG requested authorization to modify and enhance its existing Totem gas storage field, including the installation of new injection and withdrawal wells and the replacement of installation of various storage pipeline. In the ensuing weeks, the Commission issued multiple letters requesting additional information to assist in its environmental review and analysis with respect to the project; CIG submitted responses to each, respectively. On November 7, 2024, the Commission issued the Environmental Assessment (EA), finding that approval of the project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Agenda item C-1 may be an order on the CPCN application.
C-2 – Omitted
C-3 – Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (Docket No. CP24-510-000). On August 8, 2024, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (FGT) submitted a Prior Notice Request for Authorization pursuant to its existing blanket certificate as issued by the Commission originally in Docket No. CP82-553. In the Prior Notice, FGT requested authorization to increase mainline capacity, and to construct, modify, own, maintain, and operate interstate natural gas mainline facilities as well as upgrade a receipt point and construct a new delivery point. In the ensuing weeks, the Commission issued multiple letters requesting additional information to assist in its environmental review and analysis with respect to the project; FGT submitted responses to each, respectively. On January 31, 2025, the Commission issued the EA, finding that approval of the project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Agenda item C-3 may be an order on the Prior Notice.
C-4 – Mississippi Hub, LLC (Docket No. CP24-80-000). On March 5, 2024, Mississippi Hub, LLC (MS Hub) submitted an application for a CPCN, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the NGA. In the CPCN application, MS Hub requested authorization for the expansion of the working gas capacity of two existing gas caverns, the installation of three new gas caverns, and the installation of a new booster compressor unit. MS Hub also requested that the Commission provide a reaffirmation of its authority to provide interstate storage and storage-related services at market-based rates (MBR). In the ensuing weeks, the Commission issued multiple letters requesting additional information to assist in its environmental review and analysis with respect to the project; MS Hub submitted responses to each, respectively. On October 30, 2024, the Commission issued the EA, finding that approval of the project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Agenda item C-4 may be an order on the CPCN application.
C-5 – Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC (Docket Nos. CP15-550-002, CP15-550-000). On February 21, 2019, the Commission issued an order (Authorization Order) authorizing Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC (Venture Global) to site, construct, and operate a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana (Calcasieu Pass LNG Terminal). As relevant here, Ordering Paragraph (B) of the Authorization Order required Venture Global to place its proposed liquefaction facilities in-service within five (5) years of the Calcasieu Pass Order (i.e., by February 21, 2024) (In-Service Deadline). On February 15, 2024, Venture Global filed a request for a one-year extension of time (Extension Request) of the In-Service Deadline or, alternatively, clarification that no such extension is required. According to the Extension Request, even though all of Venture Global's liquefactions facilities were in-service, Venture Global believed some interested stakeholders may nevertheless interpret the In-Service Deadline more broadly than its plain language suggests, and in a manner where Venture Global would not be able to comply with the In-Service Deadline as a result of the continuing need for further commissioning, repair, rectification, and completion of certain Calcasieu Pass LNG Terminal facilities. In response to the Extension Request, a number of Venture Global's customers submitted comments disagreeing with Venture Global's claim that it had not completed the construction and commissioning of the entire Calcasieu Pass LNG Terminal; in their view, no one disputes Venture Global's position that proposed liquefaction facilities in Ordering Paragraph (B) of the Authorization Order includes only the liquefaction blocks at the Calcasieu Pass LNG Terminal, and not every last piece of equipment on-site at the entire Calcasieu Pass LNG Terminal. Those customers therefore contend that the Commission need only answer that question in the affirmative and then deny as moot Venture Global's Extension Request. On June 10, 2024, the Commission issued an order referring the matter to an administrative law judge (ALJ) and requiring Venture Global to provide its customers with access to previously requested material. On July 25, 2024, the ALJ issued the protective order between Venture Global and its customers in lieu of the parties reaching a protective agreement. In the order, the ALJ set forth the procedural schedule, with motions seeking relief due by September 30, 2024 and answers to the motions due by October 4, 2024. On October 10, 2024, the ALJ issued an order denying the motion to compel as filed by Shell NA LNG (Shell), which affirmed the June 10 as not compelling Venture Global to provide Shell, or any other intervenor, with ongoing access to non-public documents that Venture Global had filed with the Commission. On October 25, 2024, Shell filed a brief on exceptions or, in the alternative, request for rehearing of the October 10 order. Agenda item C-5 may be an order on the brief on exceptions or request for rehearing by Shell.
Flannery Sockwell (Law Clerk, Washington, DC) contributed to the development of this publication.
1 The ITOs are Transmission Owners in PJM. The ITOs are: American Electric Power Service Corporation on behalf of its affiliates, Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Wheeling Power Company, AEP Appalachian Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Kentucky Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc., and AEP West Virginia Transmission Company, Inc. (collectively "AEP"); The Dayton Power and Light Company; Duke Energy Corporation on behalf of its affiliates Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., and Duke Energy Business Services LLC; Duquesne Light Company; East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.; Exelon Corporation, on behalf of its affiliates Atlantic City Electric Company, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company, PECO Energy Company, and Potomac Electric Power Company; The FirstEnergy Transmission Companies, including American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission LLC, Keystone Appalachian Transmission Company, The Potomac Edison Company, Monongahela Power Company and Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company; PPL Electric Utilities Corporation; Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Rockland Electric Company; UGI Utilities Inc.; and Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Energy Virginia.
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.
© 2025 White & Case LLP
