Below are summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s November 18, 2021 open meeting, pursuant to the agenda issued on November 10, 2021. Items E-2 and E-6 have not been summarized due to omission.
In this issue…
- Electric Items
- Gas Items
- Hydro Items
- Certificate Items
Electric
E-1 – Reactive Power Capability Compensation (Docket No. RM22-2-000). Agenda item E-1 may initiate a new rulemaking proceeding relating to reactive power capability compensation.
E-2 – Omitted
E-3 – Public Service Company of Colorado (Docket No. ER21-2838-001). On September 3, 2021, Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) submitted a Generator Replacement Coordinator Agreement between itself and Excel Engineering of MN, LLP (Excel). Under the provisions of the agreement, Excel will serve as the independent generation replacement coordinator pursuant to the tariff on record of the Xcel Energy Operating Companies. On October 12, 2021, PSCo filed an amendment to the September 3 filing, indicating that a minor revision had been included as a result of discussions with Commission staff pertaining to the potential disclosure of confidential information in the circumstance of a legal compulsion. Agenda item E-3 may be an order on the agreement and subsequent amendment as brought forward by PSCo.
E-4 – Constellation Mystic Power, LLC (Docket No. ER18-1639-010). On May 16, 2018, Constellation Mystic Power, LLC (Mystic) filed, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), an executed cost-of-service agreement (the Mystic Agreement) among Mystic, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), and ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE). The agreement, entered into to ensure fuel security for the New England region, provides cost-of-service compensation to Mystic for continued operation of the Mystic 8 and 9 natural gas-fired generating units. The Mystic Agreement also includes 100 percent of the $150M in annual costs associated with the Everett Marine Terminal whose LNG is the only fuel source for Mystic 8 and 9. On July 13, 2018, the Commission accepted the Mystic Agreement and suspended it for a nominal period to become effective June 1, 2022, subject to refund and established settlement judge and expedited hearing procedures. On December 20, 2018, the Commission conditionally accepted the Mystic Agreement to become effective June 1, 2022. The Commission also directed a limited paper hearing to determine Mystic's ROE. Specifically, the Commission established the paper hearing to determine how to apply the ROE methodology proposed in Coakley to Mystic. On April 19, 2019, initial briefs and supporting affidavits were filed. Reply briefs and supporting affidavits were filed July 18, 2019. On May 21, 2020, the Commission issued Opinion No. 569, in which it revised its approach to determining a just and reasonable ROE. Subsequently, on July 28, 2020, the Commission issued an order reopening the record for the limited purpose of allowing the participants in the proceeding to apply the Commission's revised ROE methodology, as established in Opinion No. 569-A. Briefs were filed on September 28, 2020 and October 28, 2020, respectively. On July 15, 2021, the Commission issued an order, finding that Mystic is of average risk and that the just and reasonable ROE is calculated at 9.33 percent. Three separate parties filed respective requests for rehearing on August 13 and 16, 2021, commonly asserting that the Commission erroneously declared Mystic to be of average risk, and that the risk profile is not accurately conveyed in the proxy group due to Exelon (its parent company) also being included. The requests for rehearing implore the Commission to re-evaluate its ROE calculation and deem Mystic as above-average risk, as well as address several perceived methodological errors in its determination. On October 15, 2021 and November 10, 2021, respectively, multiple stakeholders including the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed Petitions for Review of the July 15 order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Agenda item E-4 may be an order on the requests for rehearing of the July 15 order.
E-5 – DATC Path 15, LLC (Docket Nos. ER17-998-001, EL17-61-001, EL18-91-000). On March 15, 2018, the Commission issued an order to show cause, pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), directing utility respondents to propose revisions to its transmission formula rate under its open access transmission tariff or transmission owner tariff to reflect the recent change in the federal corporate income tax rate or to show cause why it should not be required to do so. On May 10, 2018, DATC Path 15, LLC (DATC) submitted a response to the Commission’s show cause order, explaining that DATC’s rate is currently the subject of an ongoing hearing proceeding under Docket No. ER17-998-001 and EL17-61-001. Accordingly, DATC asserted it would address the reduction of the corporate income tax rate and requested the Commission find this approach sufficient. On November 15, 2018, the Commission issued an order on the Section 206 proceeding under the FPA, finding that DATC is not required to effectuate revisions to its transmission rate, and holding the effective date in abeyance pending the final outcome of the other related proceedings. On November 15, 2019, a Commission administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an initial decision that, inter alia, found the existing 13.5 percent return on equity (ROE) for the transmission revenue requirement for the DATC Path 15 Update, owned by DATC, remains just and reasonable. In the ensuing months, initial and reply briefs were filed. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the November 15 initial decision as rendered by the ALJ relating to the established ROE for DATC.
E-6 – Omitted
E-7 – Southern California Edison Company (Docket Nos. ER20-1720-001, ER20-1720-002). On April 30, 2020, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) submitted proposed revisions to its Formula Rate in its Tariff. According to the filing, SCE is complying with the directives of Order No. 864, which addressed the effects of the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 on accumulated deferred income tax (ADIT). SCE indicates that the proposed change to its existing Formula Rate, which had been accepted on June 11, 2019, is responsive to Order No. 864. On November 20, 2020, the Commission issued a deficiency letter, instructing SCE to furnish clarifying information on issues such as how the rate base adjustment and income tax allowance adjustment mechanism work in conjunction with ADIT calculations. SCE responded to the deficiency letter on December 11, 2020. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the proposed revisions to the Formula Rate of SCE.
E-8 – American Transmission Systems, Incorporated and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket Nos. ER20-1739-000, ER20-1739-001). On May 1, 2020, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated (ATSI) submitted proposed revisions to its Formula Rate set forth in the PJM Tariff. According to the filing, ATSI is complying with the directives of Order No. 864, which addressed the effects of the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 on accumulated deferred income tax (ADIT). On October 28, 2020, the Commission issued a deficiency letter, instructing ATSI to furnish additional information relating to the revised calculations. ATSI submitted a response to the deficiency letter on November 25, 2020. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on the proposed revisions to the Formula Rate of ATSI.
E-9 – North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Docket No. EL21-9-000). On October 16, 2020, North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) filed a Complaint against Duke Energy Progress, LLC (DEP), pursuant to Sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). In the Complaint, NCEMC alleged that the existing return on equity (ROE) granted to DEP pursuant to the Power Supply and Coordination Agreement in effect since December 19, 2008 has become excessive and unreasonable. Therefore, NCEMC requested that the Commission reduce the ROE for DEP under this Agreement. According to NCEMC, a number of Commission opinions and orders in the ensuing years addressing ROE will bear out a new methodology in re-calculating the appropriate ROE, which is stated as rightfully being no higher than 7.78 percent from the historical 11.0 percent for the Agreement. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the Complaint as brought forward by NCEMC against DEP.
E-10 – Ameren Illinois Company (Docket Nos. ER20-1237-001, ER20-1237-002). On March 10, 2020, Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren) submitted its annual informational filing of formula rate update and true-up per the protocols as set forth in Attachment O of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) Tariff. In the filing, Ameren states that the projected net revenue requirement is based on projected cost data for calendar year 2020 and from actual cost data from calendar year 2018. On April 15, 2020, Southwestern Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Southwestern) filed a Formal Challenge to the Ameren informational filing and true-up. Southwestern alleges that, due to a number of perceived faults, the annual transmission revenue requirement (ATRR) sought by Ameren in its filing is unjust and unreasonable. Based on presently known information, Southwestern is seeking a reduction in the ATRR by at least $1.7 million, with potential factors that may warrant a further reduction if the Commission requires additional information to be disclosed by Ameren. On March 18, 2021, the Commission issued an order, granting in part the Formal Challenge and directing Ameren to submit a compliance filing. The Commission found that Southwestern correctly demonstrated inflated construction-related costs that resulted in a higher ATRR than acceptable. On April 19, 2021, Ameren filed a request for rehearing of the March 18 order. On May 17, 2021, Ameren submitted the compliance filing as instructed, pertaining to the four areas of rate-related expenses: Materials and Supplies, Allocated Regulatory Expenses, Industry Association Dues, and Return on Life Insurance. On July 20, 2021, Ameren filed a Petition for Review of the March 18 order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Agenda item E-10 may be an order on the original filing or the compliance filing by Ameren.
E-11 – Carroll County Energy LLC (Docket No. ER17-1609-003), Cricket Valley Energy Center, LLC (Docket No. ER19-1215-002). On June 29, 2020, Carroll County Energy LLC and Cricket Valley Energy Center, LLC (collectively, the Indicated MBR Sellers) filed their triennial market power update for the Northeast region. As disclosed in the joint filing, Indicated MBR Sellers assert they continue to satisfy the tests for market-based rate authorization and do not exert horizontal or vertical market power. On August 28, 2020, the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) for PJM filed a limited protest of the updated market power analysis, stating that Indicated MBR Sellers are not specifically responsible for broader issues in the PJM capacity market, but that the Commission should nonetheless initiate a separate Section 206 proceeding under the FPA to investigate the competitive balance of the market and address flaws in the market rules for market power mitigation. Agenda item E-11 may be an order on the updated market power analysis and/or the limited protest.
E-12 – Hecate Energy Greene County 3 LLC v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation and New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. EL21-49-001). On February 11, 2011, Hecate Energy Greene County 3 LLC (HEG) filed a Complaint, pursuant to Sections 206 and 306 of the FPA, against New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO). In the Complaint, HEG alleged that NYISO violated the provisions of its Tariff by failing to process a small generator interconnection request in a timely fashion as well as applying an inclusion practice regarding the firmness of generator interconnection requests. HEG asserted that, consequently, NYISO incorrectly assigned approximately $10 million in system upgrade facility costs to their project rather than projects in the New York standardized interconnection process that requested interconnection after the HEG project. On July 15, 2021, the Commission issued an order denying the Complaint, finding that HEG failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that NYISO behaved in an unjust and unreasonable manner. On August 13, 2021, HEG filed a request for rehearing of the July 15 order. On September 22, 2021, HEG filed a Petition for Review of the July 15 order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Agenda item E-12 may be an order on the request for rehearing as brought forward by HEG.
E-13 – Luna Valley Solar I, LLC v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company and California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket No. EL21-70-000). On April 30, 2021, Luna Valley Solar I, LLC (Luna) filed a Complaint, pursuant to Sections 206 and 306 of the FPA, against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO). In the Complaint, Luna alleged that it had executed a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with PG&E and CAISO for a solar generation and battery storage project in development. However, Luna stated that PG&E informed CAISO that four of the five Local Delivery Network Upgrades are delayed by a number of years, and accordingly, Luna will not be able to achieve full capacity of its project in the timeframe previously agreed upon. Per the Complaint, PG&E notified Luna of an accelerated schedule to provide funds for security posting, which Luna perceives as an unreasonable demand. On November 2, 2021, Luna submitted a request for Commission action, citing the commercial viability of the project and impending milestones. Agenda item E-13 may be an order on the Complaint by Luna.
E-14 – Edgecombe Solar Energy LLC v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC, and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Docket No. EL21-73-000). On May 12, 2021, Edgecombe Solar Energy LLC (Edgecombe) filed a Complaint, pursuant to Sections 206 and 306 of the FPA, against Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, and Duke Energy Florida, LLC (collectively, Duke Companies). In the Complaint, Edgecombe requested that the Commission grant relief by: directing Duke Companies to revise their Affected System Operator Agreement to include required provisions providing for reimbursement of Network Upgrades that Duke Companies construct in their role as Affected System Operators. Edgecombe specified that Duke Companies notified customers that, effective October 1, 2020, they will discontinue the practice of reimbursement to customers for Affected System upgrades funded on Duke Companies systems. Agenda item E-14 may be an order on the complaint as brought forward by Edgecombe.
E-15 – TransCanyon Western Development, LLC (Docket No. ER21-1065-002). On August 13, 2021, TransCanyon Western Development, LLC (TransCanyon) submitted an Offer of Settlement and Settlement Agreement purporting to resolve the outstanding issues in this proceeding. The settlement pertains to a proposed formula rate template, pursuant to Section 205 of the FPA, designed to calculate the annual transmission revenue requirement of TransCanyon if it develops new transmission facilities in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council footprint. The Commission issued an order on April 6, 2021 accepting parts of the filing and establishing settlement judge procedures to address remaining issues. On July 15, 2021, the parties reached an agreement at a settlement conference overseen by the settlement judge appointed by the Commission. On September 20, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order terminating settlement judge procedures. Agenda item E-15 may be an order on the Offer of Settlement and Settlement Agreement as brought forward by TransCanyon.
E-16 – Hecate Energy Blair Road LLC (Docket Nos. EL21-89-000, QF21-629-001). On July 6, 2021, Hecate Energy Blair Road LLC (Blair) submitted a Petition for Declaratory Order requesting Commission authorization for a limited waiver of the filing requirements applicable to small power production facilities as set forth in Section 292.203(a)(3) of Commission regulations. Blair specifies that the requested waiver would capture the time period of December 29, 2017 through March 30, 2021, when the qualifying facility (QF) was initially placed in operation and through when Blair filed a QF self-certification for the facility. Agenda item E-16 may be an order on the Petition for Declaratory Order by Blair.
E-17 – Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Docket No. IN21-9-000). Agenda item E-17 may be an order establishing a new investigation instituted by the Enforcement branch of the Commission into Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Gas
G-1 – Gas Transmission Northwest LLC (Docket No. RP15-904-003). On September 29, 2021, Gas Transmission Northwest LLC (GTN) submitted a Petition for Approval of Settlement and Request for Action. GTN states that the enclosed Settlement Agreement resolves the outstanding issues in the proceeding relating to the application of Order No. 849, which altered Commission policy on income tax allowances. The settlement also incorporates revisions to the transportation rates that were initially reduced to shippers and customers following the implementation of the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in lieu of GTN filing a section 4 rate case. Agenda item G-1 may be an order on the Petition for Approval of Settlement by GTN.
G-2 – Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Docket No. RP21-576-001). On March 1, 2021, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) filed a Petition for Declaratory Order determining the proper rate for the firm transportation service that Transco provides to Fairless Energy, LLC (Fairless). According to the filing, Transco seeks Commission action to resolve an ongoing dispute between itself and Fairless stemming from a contested rate and recent filing by Fairless in a state court for remedy. Transco asserts that this matter is strictly under Commission jurisdiction and therefore should be under the purview of a declaratory order to address the issue at hand, the contract terms and rate of firm transportation service from a natural gas generating facility owned by Fairless on the MarketLink Expansion Project owned and operated by Transco since 2000. On June 30, 2021, the Commission issued an order affirming the proper rate for the MarketLink Expansion Project as the incremental rate and exercising its jurisdiction over the case. On July 30, 2021, Fairless filed a request for rehearing of the June 30 order, alleging that the Commission imposed a tariff rate without any evidentiary hearing or the consideration of relevant empirical information. On September 29, 2021, Fairless filed a Petition for Review of the June 30 order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Agenda item G-2 may be an order on the request for rehearing as brought forward by Fairless.
Hydro
H-1 – Santa Clara Valley Water District (Docket No. P-5737-013). On December 30, 2020, Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) submitted nine environmental monitoring plans and related materials pursuant to the directives in the order issued by the Commission on October 1, 2020 in another sub-docket in this proceeding. Agenda item H-1 may be an order on the environmental monitoring plans by Valley Water.
H-2 – Scotts Mill Hydro, LLC (Docket No. P-14867-002). On August 5, 2021, the Commission issued an order rejecting the application of Scott’s Mill Hydro, LLC (Scott’s Mill) to obtain a license for Project No. 14867. On September 7, 2021, and supplemented on October 22, 2021, Scott’s Mill filed a request for rehearing of the August 5 order, asserting that the Commission erred in its analysis of the deed and did not appropriately evaluate the ownership status of all real property and flowage and riparian rights necessary for development of the project. Agenda item H-2 may be an order on the request for rehearing as brought forward by Scott’s Mill.
H-3 – RAMM Power Group, LLC (Docket No. P-14869-002). On August 12, 2021, the Commission issued an order rejecting the request for a Preliminary Permit extension of RAMM Power Group, LLC (RAMM) for Project No. 14869. On September 9, 2021, RAMM filed a request for rehearing of the August 12 order, stating that the Commission did not accommodate delayed timeframes due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that a rejection will force RAMM to incur significant project delays and the burden of preparing materials for a new request. Agenda item H-3 may be an order on the request for rehearing by RAMM.
H-4 – Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket No. P-2310-227), Nevada Irrigation District (Docket Nos. P-2784-006, P-14530-001). On January 22, 2019, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) and Nevada Irrigation District (NID) submitted a Joint Application for Approval of Partial Transfer of License and of Non-Capacity Amendments of Licenses to Effectuate Transfer and for Approval for Transferee to Transfer an Interest in Project Lands, pursuant to section 8 of the FPA and Part 9 of the Commission’s regulations. The Joint Application pertains to the Drum-Spaulding Project (Project Nos. P-2310, P-2784, and P-14530), which would transfer ownership from PG&E to NID, as well as an interest in project lands. Agenda item H-4 may be an order on the Joint Application by PG&E and NID.
H-5 – Hydro Power, Inc. and Albany Engineering Corporation (P-2487-048). On September 22, 2020, Hydro Power, Inc. (Hydro Power) and Albany Engineering Corporation (Albany) filed an Application for Approval of Transfer of License for the Hoosick Falls Hydroelectric Project (Project No. P-2487). As explained in the filing, Hydro Power would transfer ownership of the Project to Albany following acquisition on January 15, 2020. Agenda item H-5 may be an order on the Application as brought forward Hydro Power and Albany.
H-6 – Desert Pumped Storage, LLC (Docket No. P-15030-000). On April 27, 2020, Desert Pumped Storage, LLC (DPS) filed an Application for Preliminary Permit relating to the proposed SilverKing 2 pumped storage project. According to DPS, the application serves to secure and maintain priority for a license for the proposed project pursuant to Part I of the FPA as well as evaluate and determine the feasibility of the project. Agenda item H-6 may be an order on the Application by DPS.
Certificates
C-1 – Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP (Docket No. CP17-494-004), Jordan Cove Energy Project L.P. (Docket No. CP17-494-004). On September 21, 2017, Jordan Cove Energy Project L.P. (Jordan Cove) submitted, pursuant to section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), an application for authorization to site, construct, and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon, capable of liquefying up to 1.04 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day for export to overseas markets (Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas Project). On September 21, 2017, Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP (PCGP) submitted, pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to construct and operate a natural gas transmission pipeline providing about 1.2 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from the Malin hub to the Jordan Cove terminal, crossing portions of Klamath, Jackson, Douglas, and Coos Counties, Oregon (Pacific Connector). On November 15, 2019, Commission staff issued an Environmental Impact Statement concluding that approval of both the Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas Project and the Pacific Connector would result in a number of significant environmental impacts; however, the majority of impacts would be less than significant because of the impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures proposed by Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector and those recommended by staff in the EIS. On March 19, 2020, the Commission issued an order (March order) authorizing Jordan Cove’s proposal under section 3 of the NGA to site, construct, and operate the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal, a new liquefied natural gas export terminal and associated facilities in unincorporated Coos County, Oregon. The March order also authorized Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP’s proposal under section 7(c) of the NGA to construct and operate the Pacific Connector Pipeline, a new 229-mile-long interstate natural gas pipeline system in Klamath, Jackson, Douglas, and Coos Counties, Oregon. In April 2020, numerous entities requested rehearing of the March order. On April 21, 2020, Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP and Jordan Cove Energy Project L.P. (collectively, Applicants) submitted a Petition for Declaratory Order finding that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) waived its ability to issue certification for the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Pipeline pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). A number of stakeholders and intervening parties filed substantive comments and protests to the Petition, alleging that Applicants had previously stated in local proceedings that a CWA permit from ODEQ would be acquired as a condition for constructing the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and Pacific Connector Pipeline. The Petition stated that in light of ODEQ failing to issue a denial within one year of October 2017, it has waived its authority under the CWA. On May 22, 2020, the Commission issued an order on the rehearing requests of the March 19 order, granting in part and denying in part. Namely, the Commission clarified a portion of Environmental Condition No. 34 as sought by Applicants and denied all other rehearing matters brought forward by various environmental groups and stakeholders. In June of 2020, a number of parties filed respective Petitions for Review of the March 19 and May 22 orders in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On January 19, 2021, the Commission issued an order denying the Petition for Declaratory Order by Applicants on April 21, 2020. The Commission found that Jordan Cove was required to request section 401 water quality certification for both the Army Corps of Engineers and Commission approvals, and given that Jordan Cove failed to request Commission authorization, ODEQ could not have waived its authority to issue certification for a request it never received. Agenda item C-1 may establish a new sub-docket in this proceeding regarding the potential approval or rejection status of the Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas Project.
C-2 – Gulf States Transmission LLC (Docket No. CP21-116-001). On April 6, 2021, Gulf States Transmission LLC (Gulf States) submitted an Abbreviated Application for an Order Permitting and Approving Abandonment and Requesting a Determination of Non-Jurisdictional Status. In the application, Gulf States asked for Commission authorization to abandon its pipeline system in its entirety and vacate the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) as previously granted under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Gulf States intend to abandon by sale its pipeline system to ETC Haynesville LLC (ETCH), a non-jurisdictional gathering company. On April 20, 2021, the Commission issued the Environmental Assessment Report, finding that the proposed abandonment by sale would constitute a categorical exclusion under section 380.4(a)(31) of the Commission’s regulations. On August 9, 2021, the Commission issued an order approving abandonment. On September 8, 2021, Gulf States filed a request for rehearing of the August 9 order, principally to address the footnote whereby the Commission elected to not address the post-abandonment jurisdictional status of the facilities. Gulf States asserts that, by requiring a formal petition for declaratory order to obtain the non-jurisdictional status, the order will delay the approval process and is contrary to the terms of the purchase agreement among the parties. Agenda item C-2 may be an order on the request for rehearing by Gulf States.
C-3 – Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Docket No. CP21-23-000). On January 5, 2021, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) filed a prior notice request seeking authorization to abandon and plug five injection wells and associated pipelines, pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission’s regulations. Columbia proposes to abandon the subject facilities under the blanket certificate issued in a prior docket and asserts that the specific wells have historically performed poorly and generated little economic value. On May 13, 2021, the Commission issued the Environmental Assessment Report, finding that approval of the proposed project would not constitute a major federal action significant affecting the quality of the human environment. Agenda item C-3 may be an order on the request to abandon the blanket certificate and associated facilities as brought forward by Columbia.
C-4 – Spire STL Pipeline LLC (Docket No. CP17-40-010). On January 26, 2017, Spire STL Pipeline, LLC (Spire) filed, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), a request for authorization to construct and operate a new, 65-mile-long interstate natural gas pipeline system (Spire STL Pipeline), extending from an interconnection with Rockies Express Pipeline LLC in Scott County, Illinois, to interconnections with both Spire Missouri Inc. and Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC in St. Louis County, Missouri. Spire also requested approval of its proposed pro forma gas tariff, a blanket certificate under Part 157, Subpart F of the Commission’s regulations to perform certain routine construction activities and operations, and a blanket certificate under Part 284, Subpart G of the Commission’s regulations to provide open-access firm and interruptible natural gas transportation and transportation-related services. On August 3, 2018, the Commission issued a certificate granting the requested authorities. On September 14, 2021, the Commission issued an order granting a Temporary Certificate, noting that an emergency exists under section 7(c)(1)(B) of the NGA and therefore Spire can continue operation of the Spire STL Pipeline. The Commission issued the Temporary Certificate as it contemplates the pending application under a separate sub-docket of this proceeding for a Temporary Emergency Certificate. On October 14, 2021, Spire submitted a request for expedited clarification or rehearing of the September 14 order. Spire namely seeks an extended timetable, citing the temporary certificate length of 90 days to be insufficient relative to the forthcoming winter heating season as well as precluding Spire from engaging in any construction or providing new service. Consequently, Spire requests Commission authorization to enter into new contracts to provide firm and interruptible transportation services for the currently unsubscribed capacity on its system. Concurrently, Spire Landowners filed a request for rehearing of the September 14 order, asserting that Spire continues to unlawfully move forward with actions in three federal groups under the certificate for the project which was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 22, 2021. Spire Landowners also claim that Spire has made “no effort” in acquiring the legal title to the property necessary to operate the Spire STL Pipeline project. With regard to eminent domain, Spire Landowners state that no such authority has been conveyed to Spire and is presumptively stayed under the Commission policy issued on May 4, 2021. Agenda item C-4 may be an order on the respective requests for rehearing and/or clarification by Spire and/or Spire Landowners.
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2021 White & Case LLP
