Below are summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's October 20, 2022 open meeting, pursuant to the sunshine notice released on October 13, 2022.
In this issue…
- Electric Items
- Gas Items
- Hydro Items
- Certificate Items
Electric
E-1 – New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. ER21-2460-002). In Order No. 2222, the Commission required each Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) and Independent System Operator (ISO) to amend its tariffs to ensure that any Distributed Energy Resource (DER) that is technically capable of providing wholesale services through aggregation is eligible to do so. On July 19, 2021, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) filed its first compliance filing for Order No. 2222. NYISO proposed to limit the ancillary services that a heterogeneous aggregation can provide to the services that the "least capable" resource in the aggregation is technically capable of providing. On June 17, 2022, the Commission rejected NYISO's proposal as unreasonable, finding it did not comply with Order No. 2222 (June 17 Order). The Commission found that "so long as some of the DERs in the Aggregation can satisfy the relevant requirements to provide certain ancillary services (e.g., the one-hour sustainability requirement) . . . those DERs should be able to provide those ancillary services through aggregation, in accordance with the goal of Order No. 2222 to allow [DERs] to provide all services that they are technically capable of providing through aggregation." On July 18, 2022, NYISO filed Request for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Rehearing of the June 17 Order. On that same day Natural Resources Defense Council, Sustainable FERC Project, and Advanced Energy Economy (collectively, Clean Energy Advocates) filed a Request for Rehearing of the June 17 order arguing that Commission did not find a reasoned basis for determining NYISO's proposed DER definition complies with Order No. 2222. On August 5, 2022, the Clean Energy Advocates filed an Answer to NYISO's July 18 Request for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Rehearing. The Clean Energy Advocates argued NYISO improperly was seeking approval of a new proposal that it did not propose in the underlying proceeding. On August 18, 2022, the Commission filed a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law and Providing for Further Consideration. Agenda item E-1 may be an order on NYISO Request for Clarification, or in the alternative, Rehearing and the Clean Energy Advocate's Request for Rehearing.
E-2 – California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket No. ER21-2455-002). In Order No. 2222, the Commission required each RTO and ISO to amend its tariffs to ensure that any Distributed Energy Resource (DER) that is technically capable of providing wholesale services through aggregation is eligible to do so. On July 18, 2021, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) submitted its first compliance filing for Order No. 2222. On June 17, 2022, the Commission approved and rejected in part CAISO's compliance filing, requesting CAISO submit a further compliance filing addressing the remaining barriers to participation for DERs in wholesale markets through aggregation (June 17 Order). On July 15, 2022, Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (collectively, the California Utilities) requested clarification of the June 17 Order. Specifically, the California Utilities argued that the Commission should clarify Paragraph 110 of the June 17 Order to reinforce important jurisdictional rulings that it has made in the past, particularly in Sun Edison LLC, 129 FERC 61,146 (2009) and Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 133 FERC 61,059 (2010). Because the jurisdictional holdings in these two cases have not been explicitly modified or reversed, the California Utilities seek clarification to determine if Paragraph 110 resulted in any change in Commission jurisdiction that merits rehearing. On July 18, 2022, Advanced Energy Economy (AEE) submitted a request for rehearing of the June 17 Order arguing that the Commission violated the FPA by approving portions of the CAISO Order No. 2222 compliance filing. On August 18, 2022, the Commission filed a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law and Providing for Further Consideration. Agenda item E-2 may be an order on the California Utilities' and AEE's Requests for Rehearing.
E-3 – Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. ER22-1719-001). On April 29, 2022, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted revisions to the SPP Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff) to establish a process for the development of consistent Zonal Planning Criteria to be applied comparably to all Transmission Owners within each Zone (Zonal Planning Criteria Process). The Tariff revisions were based on the previous proposed revisions filed with the Commission to establish a process for developing uniform local transmission planning criteria (Original Zonal Planning Criteria Process), but were changed, with input from numerous SPP stakeholders, to address the previous rejection of the Original Zonal Planning Criteria Process by the Commission in 2020. On June 28, 2022, the Commission issued an order accepting the SPP 2022 Zonal Planning Criteria Process Filing to establish an annual process, known as the Zonal Planning Criteria Process, for each transmission pricing zone to develop a single set of uniform planning criteria, called Zonal Planning Criteria (June 28 Order). On July 22, 2022, Indicated SPP Transmission Owners (ITOs) filed a Request for Rehearing, Alternative Requests for Clarification, and Request for Expedited Action of the June 28 Order. On July 27, 2022, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OGE) filed a Request for Hearing and on July 28, 2022 GridLiance High Plains, LLC (GHP) filed a Request for Rehearing or, in the Alternative, Clarification of the June 28 Order. On August 12, 2022, SPP filed Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer to the various rehearing requests that were filed. On August 22, 2022 a collective of joint commenters filed an Answer in Support of the SPP's August 12th Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer. On August 26, 2022 OGE filed a Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer to SPP's August 12th Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer. On August 29, 2022, the Commission filed a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law and Providing for Further Consideration. Agenda item E-3 may be an order on the Requests for Rehearing of the June 28 Order approving the SPP 2022 Zonal Criteria Planning Process.
E-4 – City and County of San Francisco v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket Nos. EL15-3-004, ER15-704-026). On November 21, 2019, the Commission issued Opinion No. 568, which affirmed in part and overturned in part, an its initial decision in City and Cnty. of San Francisco v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 157 FERC 63,021 (2016) which deals with issues surrounding the grandfathering of San Francisco's customers to receive wholesale distribution service under Pacific Gas & Electric's (PG&E) wholesale distribution tariff. On December 20, 2019, the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) filed a request for rehearing of Opinion No. 568, which on June 4, 2020 the Commission denied in part and granted in part. On August 5, 2020, San Francisco filed notice that it was seeking review of Opinion No. 568 and the June 4th Rehearing Order on the grounds that they are arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706; violate federal law, including the Federal Power Act; and are otherwise contrary to law. Docket No. ER15-704-25 includes the compliance filing service agreements between PG&E and San Francisco. Both sub-dockets in Item E-4 have not been populated. Agenda item E-4 may be an order with respect to the Commission's decision in Order No. 568.
E-5 – Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.; Evergy Metro, Inc.; Evergy Missouri West, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER20-67-001; ER20-116-001; ER20-113-001). On September 28, 2020, Evergy Kansas Central, Inc., Evergy Metro, Inc., and Evergy Missouri West, Inc. (collectively Evergy MBR Sellers) filed a notice of change in status regarding changes to Evergy MBR Sellers' upstream ownership. On May 10, 2021, the Commission issued a deficiency letter requesting more information on Evergy MBR Sellers' upstream ownership. The Evergy MBR Sellers' filed a response to the May 10, 2021 deficiency letter on May 28, 2021. On September 22, 2021, the Commission issued an additional deficiency letter requesting additional information regarding the business activities of all and upstream owners and all affiliates of the Evergy MBR Sellers. The Evergy MBR Sellers submitted a response to the September 22, 2021 deficiency letter on October 22, 2021. On November 12, 2021, Public Citizen, Inc. and the Communications Workers of America filed a Joint Protest. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the Evergy MBR Seller's original September 28, 2020 change in status filing with respect to its October 22, 2021 deficiency letter response.
E-6 – TransAlta Energy Marketing (U.S.) Inc.,; TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp., TransAlta; Centralia Generation LLC, TransAlta Wyoming; Wind LLC, Lakeswind Power Partners, LLC, Big; Level Wind LLC, Eagle Canada Common Holdings LP, and BIF IV Eagle NR Carry LP. (Docket No. EC22-45-000). On February 28, 2022, TransAlta Energy Marketing (U.S.) Inc.; TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp.; TransAlta Centralia Generation LLC; TransAlta Wyoming Wind LLC; Lakeswind Power Partners, LLC; and Big Level Wind LLC (collectively, the TransAlta Companies), together with Eagle Canada Common Holdings LP and BIF IV Eagle NR Carry LP, filed an application (203 Application) under section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requesting authorization for a change in control over the TransAlta Companies that may occur upon the termination of certain standstill provisions in a 2019 debt securities agreement between TransAlta Corporation and Brookfield BRP Holdings (Canada) Inc., an affiliate of Brookfield Asset Management Inc. On August 25, 2022, the Commission issued an In the absence of Commission action within 180 days, the Application would be deemed granted Order Tolling Time for Action on Application under FPA Section 203 because in the absence of Commission action within 180 days the 203 Application would be deemed granted. The Commission tolled its decision until February 22, 2023. Agenda item E-6 may be an order on the TransAlta Companies' 203 Application.
E-7 – Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER19-776-001, ER19-809-001). On January 7, 2019, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) filed revisions to MISO Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff (MISO Tariff) to add City of Henderson, Kentucky, Utility Commission, d/b/a HMPL Municipal Power & Light (HMPL) as a Transmission Owning member of MISO. Relatedly on January 28, 2019, MISO, on behalf of HMPL, filed an unexecuted Joint Pricing Zone Revenue Allocation Agreement (JPZA) to include certain HPML 69 kV and 161 kV facilities into the MISO pricing zone. Big Rivers Electric Corporation (BREC) submitted protests to both filings. On March 8, 2019, the Commission issued an order consolidating the two proceedings, accepting for filing the JPZA effective February 1, 2019, subject to refund, and establishing hearing and settlement proceedings. Following termination of settlement judge procedures, the matter was set for trial-type hearing procedures before a presiding administrative law judge (ALJ). By motion granted by the presiding ALJ on July 13, 2020, the proceeding was converted to a paper hearing. On January 19, 2021, the presiding ALJ issued an Initial Decision finding that HMPL facilities should be included in the MISO pricing zone and the unexecuted JPZA to be just and reasonable and should be approved by the Commission. Briefs on exception to the Commission on the Initial Decision were filed on February 18, 2021, by BREC and on March 10, 2021, by HMPL, Commission trial staff, and MISO. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the presiding ALJ's January 19 Initial Decision on the HMPL facilities, the unexecuted JPZA, and related MISO Tariff revisions.
E-8 – Avangrid Renewables, LLC (Docket No. ER21-2464-000). On July 19, 2021, Avangrid Renewables, LLC (Avangrid), in accordance with the Commission's June 17, 2021 order providing guidance on cost justification filings pending before the Commission, submitted a filing to justify certain spot market sales at prices exceeding the WECC $1,000/MWh "Soft" Cap. On August 6, 2021, Southern California Edison Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed a joint protest of Avangrid's July 19 cost justification filing. On August 9, 2021, the Department of Market Monitoring of the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO DMM) filed comments in response as well. Avangrid filed a motion for leave and answer to the joint protest and CAISO DMM comments on August 23, 2021. Agenda item E-8 may be an order relating to Avangrid's July 19 cost justification filing.
E-9 – Black Hills Power, Inc. (Docket No. ER21-2443-000). On July 16, 2021, Black Hills Power, Inc. (Black Hills Power), in accordance with the Commission's June 17, 2021 order providing guidance on cost justification filings pending before the Commission, submitted a filing to justify certain spot market sales made at prices exceeding the WECC $1,000/MWh "Soft" Cap. On August 6, 2021, Southern California Edison Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed a joint protest of Black Hills Power's July 16 cost justification filing. On August 9, 2021, the CAISO DMM filed comments in the docket as well. Black Hills Power filed motions for leave and answers to the joint protest and CAISO DMM comments on August 20, 2021. Agenda item E-9 may be an order relating to Black Hills Power's July 16 cost justification filing.
E-10 – Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Docket Nos. ER21-43-000, ER21-43-001, ER21-43-002, ER21-2453-000). On July 19, 2021, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), in accordance with the Commission's June 17, 2021 order providing guidance on cost justification filings pending before the Commission, submitted a filing to justify certain spot market sales made at prices exceeding the WECC $1,000/MWh "Soft" Cap. On August 6, 2021, Southern California Edison Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed a joint protest of Exelon's July 19 cost justification filing. On August 9, 2021, the CAISO DMM filed comments in the docket as well. Agenda item E-10 may be an order relating to Exelon's July 19 cost justification filing.
E-11 – Brookfield Renewable Trading and Marketing LP (Docket No. ER21-59-002). On May 20, 2022, the Commission issued an order addressing 13 market-based bilateral wholesale spot power contracts that were executed by Brookfield Renewable Trading and Marketing LP (BRTM) in August of 2020. The contracts had been the subject of a prior sub-docket and were executed at prices or above the established soft price cap of $1,000/MWh previously created by the Commission for the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region. In the order, however, the Commission found that the contracts could not be deemed just and reasonable under section 205(a) of the FPA. The Commission stated that the spot market sale prices above the soft cap, during a period of extreme weather caused by a heat wave in August of 2020, did not comport with the FPA and, accordingly, directed BRTM to issue refunds on a portion of the contracts. On June 21, 2022, BRTM filed a request for rehearing of the May 20 order, asserting that the Commission committed a legal error, as the Commission does not have the authority under the Mobile-Sierra presumption to modify a wholesale electricity contract, previously agreed to in good faith, unless the contract demonstrably harmed the public interest. On June 21, 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) filed a request for rehearing of the May 20 order, stating that BRTM had justified making the spot market sales at the average index price but did not sufficiently justified the premiums added to the index price. Agenda item E-11 may be an order on the respective requests for rehearing of the May 20 order.
E-12 – Macquarie Energy LLC (Docket No. ER21-64-001). On May 20, 2022, the Commission issued an order addressing 17 market-based bilateral wholesale spot power contracts that were executed by Macquarie Energy LLC (Macquarie) in August of 2020. The contracts had been the subject of a prior sub-docket and were executed at prices or above the established soft price cap of $1,000/MWh previously created by the Commission for the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region. In the order, however, the Commission found that only eight of the 17 contracts could be deemed just and reasonable under section 205(a) of the FPA. The Commission stated that the spot market sale prices above the soft cap, during a period of extreme weather caused by a heat wave in August of 2020, did not comport with the FPA and, accordingly, directed Macquarie to issue refunds on a portion of the rate for nine of the contracts. On June 17, 2022, Macquarie filed a request for rehearing of the May 20 order, asserting that the Commission committed a legal error, as the Commission does not have the authority under the Mobile-Sierra presumption to modify a wholesale electricity contract, previously agreed to in good faith, unless the contract demonstrably harmed the public interest. On June 21, 2022, CPUC filed a request for rehearing of the May 20 order, stating that Macquarie had justified making the spot market sales at the average index price but did not sufficiently justified the premiums added to the index price. Agenda item E-12 may be an order on the respective requests for rehearing of the May 20 order.
E-13 – Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Docket No. ER21-65-002). On May 20, 2022, the Commission issued an order addressing two-day ahead transactions for real-time energy sales between Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State) and Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (Salt River) in August of 2020. The contracts had been the subject of a prior sub-docket and were executed at prices or above the established soft price cap of $1,000/MWh previously created by the Commission for the WECC region. In the order, however, the Commission found that Tri-State justified the spot market sales at the relevant average index price and could be deemed just and reasonable under section 205(a) of the FPA, but the premiums added to the index price were not. The Commission stated that the spot market sale prices above the soft cap, during a period of extreme weather caused by a heat wave in August of 2020, did not comport with the FPA and, accordingly, directed Tri-State to issue refunds. On June 29, 2022, the Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF) and the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) filed a request for rehearing of the May 20 order, stating that the Commission had overstepped its jurisdiction under the Mobile-Sierra doctrine. Additionally, the request for rehearing asks that the Commission harmonize the WECC soft offer cap with the adjoining region in CAISO pursuant to Order No. 831, in order to enable higher bids (up to $2,000/MWh) for interrelated markets, particularly during instances of extreme demand constraints. Agenda item E-13 may be an order on the request for rehearing of the May 20 order.
E-14 – Pegasus Wind, LLC (Docket No. ER22-728-001). On December 27, 2021, Pegasus Wind, LLC (Pegasus) submitted a rate schedule for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service (Rate Schedule) to be included in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) open access transmission tariff. Specifically, the Rate Schedule furnished the revenue requirement for the Reactive Supply Service from the Pegasus Wind Facility. On February 23, 2022, the Commission issued an order accepting the Rate Schedule for filing and suspended it for a nominal period, subject to refund. The Commission also set the filing for hearing and settlement judge procedures and appointed a settlement judge on March 14, 2022. The parties engaged in settlement discussions thereafter, and on August 11, 2022, Pegasus submitted an Offer of Settlement and Settlement Agreement, purporting to resolve all outstanding issues in the proceeding. On September 14, 2022, the Commission issued a Certification of Uncontested Offer of Settlement, and, on September 29, 2022, the chief judge issued an order terminating the settlement procedures. Agenda item E-14 may be an order on the Offer of Settlement and Settlement Agreement.
E-15 – Blue Ridge Power Agency (Docket No. EL21-97-000). On August 10, 2021, Blue Ridge Power Agency (Blue Ridge) submitted a Petition for Declaratory Order in order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty arising under four wholesale power supply agreements. Each of the agreements—pursuant to sections 201, 205, and 206 of the FPA—is an Agreement for Full Requirements Electric Service between an individual member (as customer) and American Electric Power Service Corporation, serving as agent for Appalachian Power Company (APCo) and conducting the agreements under the APCo market-based wholesale rate tariff. According to Blue Ridge, the Petition requests that the Commission grant members the ability to utilize battery-based energy storage technology for load management purposes under the provisions of the aforementioned agreements. On September 20, 2021, APCo filed a Protest and Motion to Dismiss, asserting that the usage of battery storage would undermine the express contractual provisions actively sought and obtained by the members in Blue Ridge. Additionally, APCo stated that Blue Ridge, nor any of its members, has procured or constructed any storage facilities, rendering the request to be speculative and moot from an operational perspective. Agenda item E-15 may be an order on the Petition for Declaratory Order.
Gas
G-1 – Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP (Docket Nos. RP19-78-000, RP19-78-001, RP19-1523-000); Southwest Gas Storage Company (Docket No. RP19-257-005). On October 11, 2018, Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Line Company (Panhandle) submitted its FERC Form No. 501-G in accordance with Order No. 849 following the enactment of the reduction in federal corporate income tax rates in December of 2017. On November 8, 2018, Southwest Gas Storage Company (Southwest Gas), an affiliate of Panhandle, submitted its respective FERC Form 501-G. By order dated January 16, 2019, the Commission instituted a proceeding under section 5 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to investigate whether the rates currently charged by Panhandle are just and reasonable, stating that that Panhandle may be "substantially over-recovering its cost of service." On February 19, 2019, the Commission issued an NGA section 5 rate review into the existing rates of Southwest Gas. Relatedly, Panhandle filed a NGA section 4 general rate case in Docket No. RP 19-1523-000. On July 22, 2019, the Commission set both matters for hearing and settlement proceedings and assigned a chief judge. On August 19, 2019, Panhandle filed revised Tariff records pursuant to NGA section 4, seeking to increase its rates effective October 1, 2019. In September of 2019, the Commission issued an order accepting and suspending, subject to refund, the NGA section 4 rate revisions. On October 1, 2019, the chief judge consolidated all of the proceedings in the above-captioned dockets and designated a settlement judge. In the ensuing months, multiple technical conferences among the parties were convened and comments were filed responsive to issues raised during the technical conferences or discovery. On April 15, 2020, Panhandle filed a motion to terminate the NGA section 5 proceeding, asserting such termination is appropriate due to the March 1, 2020 effectiveness of the rates filed by Panhandle in its NGA section 4 general rate case. On June 18, 2020, the Commission issued an order denying the request for dismissal. On August 7, 2020, the parties filed respective pre-hearing briefs. The evidentiary hearing was conducted from August 25, 2020 through September 16, 2020. On March 26, 2021, the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) issued the Initial Decision (ID) on the consolidated proceedings, principally finding that certain revisions to the Tariff rates are just and reasonable. In particular, the ALJ concurred with the proposed treatment of accumulated deferred income taxes (ADIT) by Panhandle and excess ADIT balances and the proposal to include a terminal decommission rate (but did not assent to the rate itself). Notably, the ALJ rejected the proposed return on equity (ROE) of 14.67 percent and calculated an alternative ROE of 11.43 percent; the proposed depreciation expense and rates; and the proposal to include a negative salvage rate. Panhandle was instructed to submit a compliance filing in accordance with the directives furnished in the Initial Decision within 60 days of issuance of the ID. On April 26, 2021, a number of parties filed respective Briefs on Exceptions; on May 17, 2021, multiple parties filed respective Briefs Opposing Exceptions. Agenda item G-1 may be an order on the ID, on the lack of compliance filing by Panhandle responsive to the ID, or both.
G-2 – Standard Applied to Complaints Against Oil Pipeline Index Rate Changes (Docket No. AD20-10-000). On March 25, 2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) relating to the Standard Applied to Complaints Against Oil Pipeline Index Rate Changes. Specifically, the NOI seeks to address the recent proposal to eliminate the Substantially Exacerbate Test as the preliminary screen applied to complaints against oil pipeline index rate changes and to apply the Percentage Comparison Test as the preliminary screen for complaints. Additionally, the NOI solicits comment on the use of the 10 percent threshold when applying the Percentage Comparison Test to complaints. A number of stakeholders filed respective Comments and Reply Comments on June 16, 2020 and July 16, 2020. Agenda item G-2 may be an order on the NOI.
Hydro
H-1 – Cushaw Hydro, LLC (Docket No. P-906-032). On February 8, 2021, the Commission issued an order denying the request of Cushaw Hydro, LLC (Cushaw Hydro) to amend the authorized capacity for the existing Cushaw Hydroelectric Project No. 906. On March 10, 2021, Cushaw Hydro filed a request for rehearing of the February 8 order, asserting that the Commission erred in assuming that the nameplate rating remained the same as it originally had been documented in 1929. Cushaw Hydro stated that a filing made in 2019 furnished photographic evidence reflecting the new nameplate rating effective from an upgrade in the 1990s, and consequently, the rated capacity of the project should be modified. Agenda item H-1 may be an order on the request for rehearing.
H-2 – Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket No. P-2107-047). On February 28, 2022, the Commission issued an order modifying and approving the recreation plan of Poe Hydroelectric Project No. 2107, as owned and operated by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). The recreation plan had been submitted by PG&E on September 30, 2020 in accordance with prior Commission guidance. Specifically, the recreation plan incorporates all of the recreation improvements required by Article 404 and does not include a proposal to construct a new, all-weather hiking trail. The February 28 order, however, contemplated and subsequently incorporated preliminary cost estimates and conceptual design alternatives to construct a new hiking trail. On March 30, 2022, PG&E filed a request for rehearing of the February 28 order, stating that the requirement to construct the new, all-weather Poe Hiking Trail was not feasible and not supported by any information in the formal record of the proceeding. Agenda item H-2 may be an order on the request for rehearing.
Certificates
C-1 – Texas Gas Transmission (Docket No. CP21-467-000). On June 25, 2021, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas) filed an application (Application) requesting Commission authorization to construct and operate the Henderson County Expansion Project (Project). The Project involves the construction and operation of approximately 23.5 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline and 0.1 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipeline between Henderson County, Kentucky and Posey County, Indiana; a new tie-in facility and mainline valve in Henderson County, Kentucky; a new meter and regulating station and Point of Demarcation in Posey County, Indiana. The Project would also involve the modification of Texas Gas's existing Slaughter Compressor Station (Webster County, Kentucky) and existing meter and regulating station (Johnson County, Indiana). The Project would provide up to 220 million standard cubic feet of natural gas per day to Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company d/b/a CenterPoint Energy Indiana South (CenterPoint) at its existing AB Brown Generating Station in Posey County, Indiana. The Commission issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Project on April 14, 2022 and a final EIS for the Project on August 25, 2022. Commission staff found in the final EIS that while the Project would result in limited adverse environmental impacts, approval of the Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment if constructed and operated in accordance with the mitigation measures recommended in the final EIS. Agenda item C-1 may be an order on the Application.
C-2 – Golden Pass Pipeline LLC (Docket Nos. CP21-1-000, CP21-458-000). On October 2, 2020, Golden Pass Pipeline LLC (Golden Pass Pipeline) filed applications (Applications) requesting Commission authorization to relocate, modify, and eliminate certain pipeline facilities in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana and Orange County, Texas that had been previously approved by the Commission, but not yet completed, as part of Golden Pass Pipeline's Pipeline Expansion Project in Docket No. CP14-518-000 (such relocation, modification, and elimination, the Amendment Project). The Commission issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Amendment Project on February 11, 2022 and a final EIS for the Amendment Project on June 24, 2022. Commission staff found in the final EIS that while the Amendment Project would result in limited adverse environmental impacts, approval of the Amendment Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment if constructed and operated in accordance with the mitigation measures recommended in the final EIS. Agenda item C-2 may be an order on the Applications.
C-3 – Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC (Docket No. CP22-507-000). On August 31, 2022, Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC (Limetree Bay) filed a petition for declaratory order (PDO) seeking a jurisdictional determination with respect to the inter-ship transfer of liquefied natural gas (LNG) between maritime vessels moored alongside one another at the Limetree Bay Terminals in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. According to the PDO, the United States Coast Guard has requested that, before allowing Limetree Bay to facilitate such ship-to-ship transfers of LNG by third parties, Limetree Bay first obtain an order from the Commission that either (i) disclaims jurisdiction over ship-to-ship transfers of LNG between third parties that occur within the company's harbor or (ii) authorizes those operations by approving Limetree Bay Terminals as an LNG terminal. Limetree Bay asserts that the Commission should issue a declaratory order disclaiming jurisdiction over the Limetree Bay Terminals because the Limetree Bay Terminals: (i) do not include facilities dedicated to the import or export of LNG, but instead permits ship-to-ship transfers of LNG to occur at general-use pier facilities that are outside the scope of the natural gas facilities to be regulated by the Commission; (ii) are not located at or near the point of import or export of LNG, but instead would serve as a transshipment point for transfer of LNG that has already departed a point of export elsewhere, and will not be used to offload LNG into St. Croix, where there is no local demand for LNG; (iii) would not receive or send out gas via a pipeline and therefore is not located at the place of import/export where a pipeline crosses an international border; (iv) would not own or operate equipment through which LNG is reintroduced into a pipeline such that the LNG terminal facilitates the interstate transportation of natural gas by pipelines; and (v) do not require certification under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act because the third-party ship-to-ship transfer of LNG will neither receive nor transmit LNG by pipeline onto or from St. Croix. Agenda item C-3 may be an order on the PDO.
C-4 – Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Docket No. CP20-493-001). On April 21, 2022, the Commission issued an order (Order) authorizing Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) to construct, install, modify, operate, and maintain certain natural gas compression facilities for its East 300 Upgrade Project in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, and Sussex and Passaic Counties, New Jersey (Project). On May 19, 2022, Food & Water Watch (FWW) requested rehearing of the Order (such filing, the Rehearing Request), asserting the Order is deficient in that it fails to establish need in light of state climate law and violates the National Environmental Policy Act in that its rests on a deficient final Environmental Impact Statement. On June 21, 2022, the Commission issued an order providing that while the Rehearing Request is deemed denied by operation of law, the Commission would nonetheless further consider and address the Rehearing Request in a future order. On September 2, 2022, Tennessee filed a Request for Notice to Proceed with Construction of Compressor Station 321 and Compressor Station 327 (NTP Request) as part of the Project (Project). The NTP Request asks the Commission to allow Tennessee to initiate construction activities at Compressor Station 321 and Compressor Station 327 as soon as September 19, 2022, to enable Tennessee to provide service to the Project shipper as of the Project's anticipated November 1, 2023 in-service date. On September 6, 2022, Food & Water Watch (FWW) filed an objection (Objection) to the NTP Request, arguing that the Commission should not grant the NTP Request until it acts substantively on the Rehearing Request. On October 6, 2022, Commission staff issued a letter order approving the NTP Request. Agenda item C-4 may be an order on the Rehearing Request and/or the Objection.
C-5 – Rio Grande LNG, LLC (Docket No. CP16-454-004). On May 5, 2016, Rio Grande LNG, LLC (Rio Grande) filed an application under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations for authorization to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal on the north embankment of the Brownsville Ship Channel in Cameron County, Texas. At the same time, Rio Bravo Pipeline Company, LLC (Rio Bravo) filed an application under NGA Section 7(c) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations for authorization to construct and operate a natural gas pipeline system that would deliver gas to the terminal for liquefaction and export. On November 22, 2019, the Commission issued an order (Order) authorizing Rio Grande's and Rio Bravo's respective proposals, subject to conditions. Ordering Paragraph (B) of the Order directed Rio Grande to make the Rio Grande LNG Terminal available for service within seven years of the Order, or by November 22, 2026. On April 6, 2022, Rio Grande filed a request (Extension Request) for a two-year extension of time, until November 22, 2028, to complete construction of the Rio Grande LNG Terminal and commence service, explaining that as a result of unforeseen impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic, Rio Grande was no longer able to complete construction of the Rio Grande LNG Terminal in accordance with the timeline set forth in the Order. A number of entities filed motions to intervene and protests of the Extension Order, asserting that Rio Grande has not shown that good cause exists for the Commission to grant the Extension Request. These protestors point out, among other things, that Rio Grande has entered into various offtake agreements for service prior to the November 2028 construction deadline sought in the Extension Request. Protestors also contend that changed circumstances require additional Commission review and voids the Commission's prior environmental review of the Rio Grande LNG Terminal. On May 11, 2022, Rio Grande filed an answer (Answer) refuting the various points raised by protestors. For example, Rio Grande asserts that the Commission has appropriately recognized the unforeseeable impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, acknowledging that it, plus a project proponent's continued interest its project despite these impacts, satisfy the Commission's good cause inquiry. The Answer does not dispute that portions of the Rio Grande LNG Terminal will be in commercial operation prior to November 2028, but asserts that such fact does not require the Commission to deny the Extension Request as placing the Rio Grande LNG Terminal in-service sequentially as each liquefaction train is completed will allow Rio Grande to provide LNG to European customers. The Answer also argues that the protestors' efforts to misdirect and mislead the Commission into conducting a de novo environmental review of the Rio Grande LNG Terminal are contrary to established Commission precedent, represent an effort to exhaust Commission resources, and frustrate the development of needed energy infrastructure that facilitates efforts to secure more U.S. natural gas for European allies. Agenda item C-5 may be an order on the Extension Request.
C-6 – Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLLC, and Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC, Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, LP (Docket Nos. CP18-512-002, CP18-513-002). On November 22, 2019, the Commission issued an order (November 2019 Order) authorizing Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P. (collectively, Corpus Christi) to site, construct, and operate the Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project (Project). The Project consists of the siting, construction, and operation of seven midscale liquefaction trains with a maximum total production capacity of 11.45 million metric tons per annum, one full containment liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage tank, and an associated 21-mile-long 42-inch-diameter pipeline and appurtenant facilities. The November 2019 Order contemplated that all facilities would be constructed and made available for service within five years of the date of the November 2019 Order (i.e., by November 22, 2024). On December 7, 2021, Corpus Christi filed a request (Extension Request) with the Commission for an extension of time until June 30, 2027 to complete the construction of the seven midscale liquefaction trains and storage tank portions of the Project (collectively, the Stage 3 Project). On May 6, 2022, the Commission issued an order (Extension Order) granting the Extension Request. On June 6, 2022, Sierra Club and Public Citizen (together, Intervenors) requested rehearing of the Extension Order (such filing, the Rehearing Request). Intervenors assert that the Commission erred in not re-evaluating whether the public interest still supports the Project when it issued the Extension Order, and that Corpus Christi had not demonstrated that good cause existed to grant the Extension Request. On June 21, 2022, Corpus Christi filed an answer (Answer) to the Rehearing Request, asserting that the Commission is not required to re-evaluate an underlying order's findings when considering a request for extension of time and that Corpus Christi has demonstrated good cause for an extension, as the Commission found in its Extension Order. Agenda item C-6 may be an order on the Rehearing Request
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2022 White & Case LLP
