Summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's monthly open meeting to be held on May 23, 2024, pursuant to the sunshine notice released on May 16, 2024.
In this issue…
- Electric Items
- Gas Items
- Hydro Items
- Certificate Items
Electric
E-1 – North American Electric Reliability Corporation (Docket No. RD24-3-000). On January 1, 2024, pursuant to Section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted for Commission approval proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-2 – Cyber Security – Communications Between Control Centers. The proposed reliability standard implements protections regarding the availability of communication links and sensitive data communicated between Control Centers for the Bulk Electric System. Agenda item E-1 may be order relating to proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-2.
E-2 – North American Electric Reliability Corporation (Docket No. RD23-1-002). On February 16, 2023, the Commission issued an order approving Extreme Cold Weather Reliability Standards EOP-011-3 and EOP-012-1 and directing modification of Reliability Standard EOP-012-1. The Commission's February 16 order directed NERC to work with Commission staff to develop a plan to collect data on winterization of generation units and to submit an annual informational filing on the analysis of the data. Pursuant to ordering paragraph 94 of the Commission's February 16 order, on February 16, 2024, NERC submitted a compliance filing regarding the ERO Enterprise plan to gather and analyze certain data related to generator owner declared constraints and the performance of freeze protection measures during future extreme cold weather events. Agenda item E-2 may be an order relating to NERC's compliance filing.
E-3 – Constellation Mystic Power, LLC (Docket No. ER18-1639-028). On January 4, 2024, Constellation Mystic Power, LLC (Mystic) submitted a Request for Clarification, or in the Alternative, Rehearing and Request for Rehearing of the Commission's December 5 order, Constellation Mystic Power, LLC, 185 FERC 61,170 (2023) (December 5 Order). First, Mystic sought clarification, and in the alternative rehearing, of the Commission's ruling on New England Consumer-Owned Systems' (ENECOS) Formal Challenge No. 7 related to Everett LNG Terminal's (Everett) projected 2023 capital expenditures, known as 2023 RMR CapEx. A number of ENECOS' formal challenges were settled via a settlement agreement in March 2023 (CapEx Settlement Agreement). Mystic argued the CapEx Settlement Agreement eliminated all 2023 RMR CapEx for Everett, and so the Commission should clarify that there is nothing further to settle or litigate for Formal Challenge No. 7. Second, Mystic sought clarification, and in the alternative rehearing, that the Commission denied the accounting argument that ENECOS included in their Formal Challenge No. 1. Mystic also sought rehearing of three of the Commission's rulings, all related to capital costs incurred prior to the start of the term of the Mystic's agreement with ISO New England, Inc. (ISO-NE) to run for a two-year term from June 2022 to May 2024 and be compensated for fuel security service (Mystic Agreement). On January 19, 2024, ENECOS filed an Answer to Mystic's January 4 Rehearing Request. ENECOS argues that there is a single discrete statement in the Commission's December 5 Order that requires clarification, and that clarification, which is narrower than Mystic argues and that the remainder of Mystic's Request for Clarification should be denied. ENECOS argues that the only clarification required to Paragraph 45 of the December 5 Order is deletion of the phrase "namely that the capital expenditures are: (1) necessary to meet Mystic's obligations under the Mystic Agreement; and (2) the least cost commercially reasonable option consistent with Good Utility Practice." On February 5, 2024, the Commission issued a Notice of Denial Rehearing by Operation of Law and Providing for Further Consideration. Agenda item E-3 may be an order on the initial January 4 Rehearing Request.
E-4 – Ameren Illinois Company (Docket Nos. ER23-1335-001, ER23-1335-002). On March 14, 2023, Ameren Illinois Company d/b/a Ameren Illinois (collectively, Ameren) submitted to the Commission an informational filing of its transmission formula rate as calculated in accordance with Attachment O-AIC under the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) tariff (2023 Annual Update). As Ameren has a forward-looking formula rate with a true-up to actual once costs are known, the 2023 Annual Update included a projection of costs for 2023 (2023 Projection) and a true-up of the costs and rate calculation for 2021 (2021 True-Up). The transmittal letter accompanying the 2023 Annual Update explained that certain wholesale transmission customers (Cooperative Customers) had submitted an informal challenge (Informal Challenge) regarding certain components of both the 2023 Projection and the 2021 True-Up and provided copies of both the Cooperative Customers' Informal Challenge and Ameren's response. On April 19, 2023, the Cooperative Customers filed a Formal Challenge with the Commission (2023 Formal Challenge), again raising issues with respect to elements of the 2023 Projection and the 2021 True-Up. On November 16, 2023, the Commission issued an order, denying the Cooperative Customers' challenge on most issues, requesting that Ameren provide additional information on some issues, and granting the challenge on a few issues (2023 Formal Challenge Order). On December 15, 2023, in Docket No. ER23-1335-001, Ameren sought rehearing of the 2023 Formal Challenge Order, specifically for of certain issues related to the 2021 True-Up calculation that it argues the Commission erred in granted in the 2023 Formal Challenge. On January 16, 2024, in Docket No. ER23-1335-001, the Commission issued a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law and Providing For Further Consideration. Separately, on January 16, 2024, in a new sub-docket to Docket No. ER23-1335, -002, Ameren submitted the required compliance filing pursuant to the 2023 Formal Challenge Order (Compliance Filing). On February 6, 2024, Cooperative Customers filed a Protest, focusing on one issue in the Compliance Filing – other experimental research expenses (Protest). Cooperative Customers requested that the Commission direct Ameren to exclude the university research expenses or supplement the compliance filing with additional information to support the accounting and to correct additional deficiencies the Commission may discover. On February 21, 2024, Ameren filed an Answer to the Cooperative Customers' Protest. Ameren argues that the Commission should reject the Protest. Agenda item E-4 references both -001 and -002 sub-dockets for ER23-1335 and therefore may be an order on the December 15 Rehearing Request and on the January 16 Compliance Filing.
E-5 – Lackawanna Energy Center LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. EL24-64-000). On January 25, 2024, Lackawanna Energy Center LLC (Lackawanna) submitted a formal complaint, pursuant to sections 206, 306, and 309 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM). In the complaint, Lackawanna alleged that PJM inappropriately curtailed its output from May 19, 2023 through June 10, 2023 and, accordingly, that the Commission should direct PJM to reimburse Lackawanna for the lost opportunity costs during that curtailment period. According to Lackawanna, the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) includes a provision by which generators are entitled to lost opportunity cost payments, if PJM requested the generator to reduce or curtail output due to a transmission constraint or to maintain system reliability. On February 23, 2024, PJM submitted a response to the complaint, stating that Lackawanna sought to generate above its assigned stability limit, which would not only be unsafe and illegal, but would risk damaging the physical and operational integrity of the resource itself. Specifically, PJM pointed to the language in the OATT where units are prohibited from being paid lost opportunity costs when backed down to honor stability limits. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the complaint lodged by Lackawanna against PJM.
E-6 – Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket No. ER24-219-001). On October 24, 2023, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed a petition for limited waiver, requesting that the Commission grant a limited, prospective waiver of its Formula Rate Model and associated Protocols to allow PG&E to exclude four cost inputs to the cost of long-term debt used in years 2024 and 2025 in the Formula Rate. In support of the limited waiver request, PG&E stated that implementation of the proposal will accurately reflect the cost of debt used to finance transmission infrastructure. On December 22, 2023, the Commission issued an order denying the waiver request, finding that PG&E did not demonstrate a concrete problem with the existing Formula Rate model, and that PG&E should be required to include the securitized debt in its calculation of long-term debt, as it represents the cost to serve its customers. On January 22, 2024, PG&E filed a request for rehearing of the December 22 order, asserting that the Commission acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and reached its conclusion based on incorrect interpretations. Namely, PG&E contended that it had indeed demonstrated that the securitized debt was used for non-transmission purposes and is inconsistent with Commission precedent. Agenda item E-6 may be an order on the rehearing request by PG&E.
E-7 – ISO New England Inc. (Docket No. ER22-983-006). On February 2, 2022, ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE), joined by the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee, submitted proposed revisions to the ISO-NE Tariff to allow for the participation of distributed energy resource aggregations (DERAs) in the market. The Tariff revisions would be in compliance with Commission Order Nos. 2222, 2222-A, and 2222-B, issued in 2020, to remove barriers to the participation of DERAs and facilitate their participation in wholesale markets. Multiple stakeholders filed comments and protests, stating that ISO-NE and NEPOOL had no sufficiently resolved deficiencies in the proposed Tariff revisions and that its new Order No. 2222 participation models did not effectively remove market barriers for DERAs. On May 18, 2022, the Commission issued a letter to ISO-NE and NEPOOL, requesting additional information with respect to a number of provisions, such as small utility opt-in, interconnection, and participation models. On June 17, 2022, ISO-NE filed its response to the May 18 deficiency letter. On March 1, 2023, the Commission issued an order, approving in part and rejecting in part, and directing ISO-NE to submit future compliance filings. On March 31, 2023, ISO-NE submitted a request for rehearing of the March 1 order. On May 9, 2023, ISO-NE submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the directives furnished in the March 1 order, relating to the Tariff provisions that had been approved. On November 2, 2023, the Commission accepted the May 9 compliance filing, subject to a further compliance filing. On December 4, 2023, Advanced Energy United submitted a request for rehearing of the November 2 order. On January 31, 2024, ISO-NE submitted the further compliance filing. On April 11, 2024, the Commission issued an order accepting the January 31 compliance filing, subject to a further compliance filing. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the rehearing request by Advanced Energy United.
E-8 – Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER21-2818-002, EL22-4-002); Wheat Belt Public Power District and La Plata Electric Association, Inc. (Docket No. EL21-75-001); Northwest Rural Public Power District, San Isabel Electric Association, Inc., San Miguel Power Association, Springer Electric Cooperative, Inc., and United Power, Inc. v. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Docket No. EL21-53-001). On February 26, 2021, the above-captioned entities (Complainants) filed a formal complaint, pursuant to sections 206, 306, and 309 of the FPA, against Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State). In the complaint, Complainants asserted that Tri-State refused to implement the Contract Termination Payment (CTP) Methodology on file with the Commission as Rate Schedule No. 281. Complainants stated that the CTP Methodology has been acknowledged as an enforceable filed rate, which establishes the methodology for determining exit charges that apply when a Member withdraws from Tri-State prior to the expiration of its Wholesale Electric Service Contract (WESC). Complainants requested that Tri-State calculate their respective contract termination payment amounts between November 23, 2020 through December 21, 2020, and that on January 13, 2021, Tri-State refused to do so. On March 18, 2021, Tri-State filed a motion to dismiss and answer, stating that Complainants are not terminating their WESCs and had not requested such cancellation. Additionally, Tri-State asserts that it did not violate the Filed Rate doctrine because it is not obligated to provide CTP calculations to its utility members. On December 19, 2023, the Commission issued an order on initial decision, affirming in part, reversing in part, modifying in part, and clarifying in part the initial decision and adopting a modified balance sheet approach methodology for calculating the CTP. On January 18, 2024, Tri-State submitted a request for rehearing of the December 19 order. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on the rehearing request by Tri-State.
E-9 – Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. ER24-1221-000). On February 9, 2024, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted a compliance filing related to proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) in order to clarify how it uses the loss of load expectation study to determine the planning reserve margin (PRM). On March 1, 2024, American Electric Power Service Corporation, et al. filed a protest, stating that the proposed revisions would not provide stakeholders or the Commission sufficient information to ensure a transparent determination of the PRM and, accordingly, the SPP OATT would be unjust and unreasonable. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the proposed revisions to the SPP OATT.
E-10 – ALLETE, Inc. (Docket No. ES23-71-000). On September 25, 2023, ALLETE, Inc. (ALLETE) submitted an application, pursuant to section 204 of the FPA, for authority to incur and continue to incur indebtedness of the type and nature necessary for its financing of capital projects and continuation of business operations. ALLETE stated that, as part of due diligence associated with a potential restructuring, it determined that it should submit the application out of an abundance of caution, namely with respect to potential jurisdiction over affiliate facilities located in North Dakota that may negate the full application of the Commission's exemption from the filing requirements pursuant to section 204 of the FPA. On April 8, 2024, ALLETE filed a motion for expedited consideration of the application. Agenda item E-10 may be an order on the application.
E-11 – ALLCO Finance Limited (Docket No. EL24-95-000), Clinton Solar LLC (Docket No. QF16-365-004), Windham Solar LLC (Docket Nos. QF16-366-003, QF16-369-004, QF16-379-004, QF16-381-003, QF16-382-003, QF21-661-001), Clear Lake Solar LLC (Docket No. QF24-367-001), Maple Road Solar LLC (Docket No. QF24-368-001). On March 27, 2024, ALLCO Finance Limited (Allco) submitted a petition for enforcement, pursuant to section 210(h)(2)(B) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). In the petition, Allco requested that the Commission initiate an enforcement action against the Connection Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) in order to remedy the State of Connecticut's improper implementation of section 210 of PURPA. Specifically, Allco stated that CT DEEP is compelled by a legally enforceable obligation (LEO) to purchase wholesale power by qualifying facilities (QFs), and that, due to new solicitations for offshore wind and nuclear generating facilities, CT DEEP will exclude Allco's QFs from participating in a perceived "reverse auction" whereby a higher volumetric cap has been instituted. On April 17, 2024, CT DEEP filed a protest to the petition, asserting that there is no legitimate grounds for enforcement action and that the state programs such as the one described in the petition do not contravene PURPA or infringe on existing LEOs with QFs. Agenda item E-11 may be an order on the petition for enforcement by Allco.
E-12 – Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket No. ER24-1572-000); City and County of San Francisco v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket Nos. EL19-38-002, EL19-38-000). On January 28, 2019, City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) submitted a complaint, pursuant to sections 206, 306, and 309 of the FPA, against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). In the complaint, CCSF alleged that PG&E unreasonably denied service to CCSF by refusing to provide secondary and primary plus service to small loads at new interconnection points, in violation of the Wholesale Distribution Tariff (WDT). On April 16, 2020, the Commission issued an order denying the complaint. CCSF subsequently filed petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which issued a decision vacating and remanding the Commission order. On December 15, 2022, the Commission issued its order on remand, granting the complaint and setting the matter for hearing and settlement judge procedures. On March 19, 2024, PG&E submitted a Joint Offer of Settlement, purporting to resolve the outstanding material issues in the proceeding. On April 8, 2024, CCSF filed comments in support of the settlement. The Commission issued a certification of uncontested settlement on April 23, 2024. Agenda item E-12 may be an order on the settlement between CCSF and PG&E.
Gas
G-1 – West Texas Gulf Pipe Line Company LLC; Permian Express Partners LLC (Docket Nos. OR19-22-002; OR19-32-002 (consolidated)). On September 21, 2023, the Commission issued an order (Order) granting in part and denying in part market-based rates applications (collectively, the Applications) by West Texas Gulf Pipe Line Company LLC and Permian Express Partners LLC (collectively, the Applicants). Specifically, the Commission granted Applicant's request for market-based ratemaking authority for crude oil transportation to the Netherland and Anchorage Destination Markets, but denied Applicants' request with regard to the Tyler Destination Market, which the Commission found is highly concentrated and susceptible to an exercise of market power by Applicants. On October 23, 2023, Applicants requested rehearing of the Order (Rehearing Request), arguing that the Commission should grant on rehearing Applicant's request for market-based ratemaking authority for crude oil transportation to the Tyler Destination Market. On November 20, 2022, Applicants petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for review of the Order's denial of Applicant's request for market-based ratemaking authority for crude oil transportation to the Tyler Destination Market. On November 22, 2023, the Commission issued an order granting the Rehearing Request while providing that the Commission would address the Rehearing Request in a future order. Agenda item G-1 may be an order on the Rehearing Request.
Hydro
H-1 – Establishment of Categorical Reasonable Period of Time for Action on Requests for Water Quality Certification under Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act and Clarifying Types of Hydroelectric Project Proceedings That May Require Water Quality Certification (Docket No. RM24-5-000). Agenda item H-1 is not yet populated and may relate to the Commission initiating potential rulemaking proceedings on the timing of water quality certification requests pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
H-2 – Nevada Irrigation District (Docket No. P-2266-129). On February 15, 2024, the Commission issued an order denying the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) supplemental petition for declaratory order, pursuant to Section 313(a) of the FPA. The supplemental petition sought Commission authorization to waive the authority of the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) under Section 401(a) of the Clean Water Act with respect to the issuance of a water quality certification for the proposed relicensing of the Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project No. 2266. On March 8, 2024, NID submitted a request for rehearing of the February 15 order, asserting that the Commission acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and erred in refusing to incorporate new evidence as well as to review the petition in the larger context of hydroelectric licensing proceedings involving the State Board, particularly the delays specific to California projects. Agenda item H-2 may be an order on the rehearing request.
Certificates
C-1 – Rio Bravo Pipeline Company, LLC (Docket No. CP23-519-000). On July 20, 2023, Rio Bravo Pipeline Company, LLC (Rio Bravo) filed an abbreviated application (Application) to amend the certificate of public convenience and necessity granted by the Commission on November 22, 2019 for its Rio Bravo Pipeline Project, as previously amended on April 21, 2023. Specifically, Rio Bravo proposes in its Application four minor route adjustments to the Rio Bravo Pipeline Project's certificated route. On November 14, 2023, Commission Staff issued an environmental assessment (EA) for the Application. Several interested parties filed comments on the EA, raising generalized concerns about (a) potential impacts related to the proximity of both the Rio Grande LNG Terminal and the Rio Bravo Pipeline Project to the SpaceX Boca Chica launch facility, (b) impacts on air quality, soils, wetlands and waterbodies, aquatic resources, vegetation and wildlife (including ocelot habitat), and recreation and visual resources, (c) allegedly inadequate consultation with local populations and with the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, (d) noise impacts, (e) pipeline safety issues, and (f) the cumulative impacts of the Rio Grande LNG Terminal, the Rio Bravo Pipeline Project, and other projects in the area, including the aforementioned SpaceX launch facility. On January 5, 2024, Rio Bravo filed a response to those comments, in which it generally defended the EA. Agenda item C-1 may be an order on the Application (and by extension the comments on the EA).
C-2 – Gulf LNG Liquefaction Company, LLC and Gulf LNG Energy, LLC (Docket No. CP15-521-000). On July 16, 2019, the Commission issued an order (Authorization Order) granting Gulf LNG Liquefaction Company, LLC (Gulf Liquefaction) and Gulf LNG Energy, LLC (Gulf Energy and together with Gulf Liquefaction, Gulf LNG) authorization under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to site, construct, and operate new facilities for the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) at Gulf Energy's existing LNG import terminal in Jackson County, Mississippi, near the city of Pascagoula (Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project). As relevant here, Ordering Paragraph (B) of the Authorization Order directed Gulf Energy to make the Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project available for liquefaction service within five years thereof (i.e., July 16, 2024). On February 22, 2024, Gulf Energy filed a request (Extension Request) for an additional five years to make the Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project available for liquefaction service (i.e., July 16, 2029). Gulf Energy argues in its Extension Request that it has obtained almost all required authorizations and permits related to construction and operation of the Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project, and that acquisition of the remaining permits could be resumed once consultations with the respective agencies are renewed. Gulf Energy also contends that global events since the Order was issued, including the COVID-19 pandemic, have created an extremely challenging environment for construction of large-scale infrastructure projects and execution of international commercial agreements. Gulf Energy further points to complex litigation that it has been involved in with its existing import customers over the scope and status of their terminal use agreements during this time, which Gulf Energy states has hampered its ability to execute commercial liquefaction offtake contracts with potential customers that have commercially manageable contingences (since the existing facilities are tied up in such litigation). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Gulf Energy argues in its Extension Request that the Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project remains an active project with no changes proposed to the authorized scope or design, and that Gulf Energy is in active negotiations with several potential customers and developers for significant volumes of LNG under long-term offtake contracts and could obtain positive financial investment decision as early as next year (which Gulf Energy states is in part subject to the Commission's approval of the instant Extension Request). On March 19, 2024, Public Citizen, Inc. (Public Citizen) protested the Extension Request, asserting the Commission should deny the same because Gulf Energy has not – in its view – made good faith efforts to construct the facility since obtaining Commission approval in 2019. Agenda item C-2 may be an order on the Application.
C-3 – Rio Grande LNG, LLC, Rio Grande LNG Train 4, LLC, and Rio Grande LNG Train 5, LLC (Docket No. CP24-70-000). On February 2, 2024, Rio Grande LNG, LLC (RGLNG), Rio Grande LNG Train 4, LLC (RGLNG 4), and Rio Grande LNG Train 5, LLC (RGLNG 5, and together with RGLNG and RGLNG 4, the RGLNG Entities) filed an application (Application) with the Commission to partially transfer RGLNG's existing authorization under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to site, construct, and operate the Rio Grande LNG Terminal, to RGLNG 4 for the ownership of Train 4 of the Rio Grande LNG Terminal and to RGLNG 5 for the ownership of Train 5 of the Rio Grande LNG Terminal. The RGLNG Entities state in the Application that approving this partial transfer will align the existing NGA Section 3 authorization for the Rio Grande LNG Terminal with the planned ownership of Trains 4 and 5 once the corporate parent of RGLNG 4 and RGLNG 5 (NextDecade Corporation) reaches a positive financial investment decision for these two trains (together or separately) and these two trains are constructed and in operation. The RGLNG Entities also contend in the Application that this partial transfer will ensure that the Commission's authorization of and jurisdiction over the Rio Grande LNG Terminal properly aligns with the corporate structure required for the financing of Trains 4 and 5 of the Rio Grande LNG Terminal. On March 6, 2024, Commission Staff issued an environmental assessment (EA), concluding that the Application did not involve the environment and explaining that the categorical exclusion claimed in the Application does not apply to facilities falling under NGA Section 3. Agenda item C-3 may be an order on the Application.
C-4 – Port Arthur Pipeline, LLC (Docket No. CP23-513-000). On April 18, 2019, the Commission issued an order (Certificate Order) granting Port Arthur Pipeline, LLC (PAPL) a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to Sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, and the Commission's regulations thereunder, to construct, operate, and maintain the following natural gas pipeline facilities: approximately 131 miles of new 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline; 0.5 mile of 42-inch-diameter lateral and tie-in pipeline; one compressor station; nine meter stations; nine mainline valves (MLV); four pig launchers/receivers; contractor yards; and access roads (collectively, the Louisiana Connector Project). On July 14, 2023, PAPL filed an application (Amendment Application) with the Commission requesting authorization to amend its Certificate Order in order to reflect certain proposed modifications to the previously authorized pipeline routes, construction footprint, and construction and installation methods at 38 specific locations. On February 2, 2024, Commission Staff issued an environmental assessment (EA), concluding that approval of the Amendment Application, with appropriate mitigation measures, 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 Amendment Application.
C-5 – NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC (Docket No. CP16-22-007). On August 25, 2017, the Commission issued an order (Certificate Order) granting NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC (NEXUS) a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate an approximately 257.5-mile-long interstate pipeline system designed to provide up to 1,500,000 dekatherms per day of firm transportation service from supply areas in the Appalachian Basin to consuming markets in northern Ohio and southeastern Michigan, and near the Dawn Hub in Ontario, Canada (NEXUS Project). On March 16, 2023, Commission staff issued a letter order (March 16 Letter Order) approving NEXUS's restoration and remediation plan (Restoration Plan) for two tracts of land in Erie County, Ohio that are owned by Robert Wensink. On March 23, 2023, Mr. Wensink, together with his consultant Central Land Consulting (collectively, CLC), filed a timely request for rehearing of the March 16 Letter Order, which the Commission denied by operation of law by order dated June 15, 2023 (Rehearing Order). On December 18, 2023, CLC submitted a complaint (Wensink Complaint) alleging that NEXUS was violating certain environmental conditions of the Certificate Order with respect to alleged instances of buried debris discovered during recent ripping activities on certain properties, including but not limited to Mr. Wensink's two tracts of land, along the NEXUS interstate natural gas pipeline system right-of-way in Ohio. On December 20, 2023, NEXUS filed a letter (NEXUS Response) refuting the allegations in the Wensink Complaint, as well as those raised in two similar complaints filed by Central Land Consulting on behalf of two other landowners. Agenda item C-5 may be an order on the Wensink Complaint (and the related NEXUS Response) with respect to the Restoration Plan as affirmed in the Rehearing Order.
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.
© 2024 White & Case LLP
