Below are summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s September 22, 2022 open meeting, pursuant to the sunshine notice released on September 15, 2022.
In this issue:
- Electric
- Gas
- Hydro
- Certificates
Electric
E-1 – Incentives for Advanced Cybersecurity Investment, Cybersecurity Incentives (Docket No. RM22-19-000 & RM21-3-000). On December 17, 2022, in Docket No. RM21-3-000, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to, pursuant to section 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), establish rules for incentive-based rate treatments for voluntary cybersecurity investments by a public utility (Incentives for Advanced Cybersecurity Investment NOPR). The proposed rules would be intended to provide cybersecurity incentives to public utilities that make certain cybersecurity investments that go beyond the requirements of CIP Reliability Standards. Amongst other things, the proposed rules would (i) allow public utilities making certain cybersecurity investments to request an increase in the rate of return on equity (ROE) applicable to those capital investments, (ii) allow a public utility to seek deferred cost recovery for certain cybersecurity investments and expenses associated with implementing cybersecurity upgrades and amortized over a 5-year period, (iii) require the public utility to make a filing for Commission approval pursuant to FPA section 205 and receive such approval prior to implementing the proposed incentives in its Commission-jurisdictional rates. A number of parties and stakeholders submitted comments for the Commission’s consideration to the proposals in the Incentives for Advanced Cybersecurity Investment NOPR. No public information is available for Docket No. RM22-19-000 but it may be a proceeding relating to the Incentives for Advanced Cybersecurity Investment NOPR. Agenda item E-1 may be an order on the Incentives for Advanced Cybersecurity Investment NOPR and related Commission action.
E-2 – Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes (Docket No. RM16-17-001) and the Indicated MBR Entities.1 On July 18, 2019, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, the Commission issue Order No. 860, Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes establishing, amongst other things, a relational database (RDB) to collect market-based rate information from sellers granted market-based rate authorization by the Commission. The Commission issued Order No. 860-A on rehearing and clarification on February 20, 2020. Order No. 860 went into effect and market-based rate sellers were required to submit baseline submission into the RDB by February 1, 2022. The Indicated MBR Entities that are listed by the Commission under agenda item E-2 appear to hold market-based rate authorization from the Commission but, based on information publicly available in the RDB, may not have timely submitted baseline RDB submissions. Two of the Indicated MBR Entities (Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. LP and Cooperative Energy Inc.) filed on September 16, 2022 after issuance of the Commission’s Open Meeting Agenda (Agenda) requests for extension of time to submit their baseline RDB submissions. Agenda item E-2 may be an order relating to compliance and implementation of Commission Order No. 860 by the Indicated MBR Entities and related Commission action.
E-3 – Cricket Valley Energy Center, LLC and Empire Generating Company, LLC v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. EL21-7-000). On October 14, 2020, pursuant to sections 205 and 206 of the FPA, Cricket Valley Energy Center LLC (Cricket Valley) and Empire Generating Company, LLC (Empire Generating) jointly filed a complaint against the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) requesting the Commission (i) find the offer floor rules under Attachment H (Offer Floor Rules) to NYISO’s Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff (NYISO Tariff) are unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory, and (ii) establish a just and reasonable replacement rate (NYISO Offer Floor Rules Complaint). The NYISO Offer Floor Rules Complaint asserts NYISO’s Offer Floor Rules are unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory because they do not adequately address “price suppression” in NYISO’s installed capacity Spot Market Auctions that, as alleged, is caused by below-cost offers from resources that receive out-of-market payments. On November 18, 2020, NYISO filed its answer to the NYISO Offer Floor Rules Complaint. On November 24, 2020, Cricket Valley and Empire Generating filed a response to NYISO’s answer. A number of other parties intervened and submitted comments in support and opposition to the NYISO Offer Floor Rules Complaint. Agenda item E-3 may be an order on the NYISO Offer Floor Rules Complaint.
E-4 – Just Energy Limited (Docket Nos. ER22-2044-000 & ER22-2044-001). On June 6, 2022, Just Energy Limited submitted pursuant to section 205 of the FPA an application to the Commission for authorization to make wholesale sales of electric energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates, acceptance for filing of its market-based rate tariff, and requesting the Commission designate Just Energy as Category 1 seller in all Commission-jurisdictional geographic regions. On July 15, 2022 the Commission issued Just Energy deficiency notice and requested additional information regarding its application, which Just Energy responded to on August 1, 2022. Agenda item E-4 may be an order on the Just Energy market-based rate application.
E-5 – Omitted
E-6 – Virginia Electric and Power Company (Docket No. ER22-2380-000). On July 17, 2022, Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Energy Virginia (Dominion) filed a request for a limited wavier of its formula rate protocols set forth in Attachment H to the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Open Access Transmission Tariff (PJM Tariff) to extend certain deadlines as they relate to Dominion’s 2021 formula rate true-up mechanism. Agenda item E-6 may be an order on Dominion’s request for limited waiver of its PJM Tariff formula rate protocols.
E-7 – Orlando Utilities Commission (Docket No. NJ22-11-000). On July 15, 2022, the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC), pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, submitted a petition for declaratory order. OUC filed the petition to effectuate proposed revisions to its non-jurisdictional open access transmission tariff (OATT) on file with the Commission. Namely, the OATT revisions would update the charges for point-to-point transmission service and update the Annual Transmission Revenue Requirement (ATRR) for Network Integration Transmission Service based on the use of actual data from fiscal year 2021. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the proposed revisions to the OUC OATT.
E-8 – ISO New England Inc. (Docket No. ER19-1428-005). Agenda item E-8 may initiate a new sub-docket in the existing proceeding relating to potential implementation of an inventoried energy program for the winters of 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 (the Capacity Commitment Periods associated with the 14th and 15th Forward Capacity Auctions) by ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE). The proposed program would provide incremental compensation to resources that maintain inventoried energy during cold periods when winter energy security is most stressed. On May 8, 2019, Commission staff issued a letter to ISO-NE informing ISO-NE that its filing was deficient and seeking additional information. On June 6, 2019, ISO-NE submitted its response to that letter. Pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, in the absence of Commission action on or before August 5, 2019, ISO-NE's proposal, as amended, became effective by operation of law—the Commission did not act affirmatively on the filing because of a lack of quorum at the time. A number of stakeholders filed respective requests for rehearing of the August 6 Notice of Filing Taking Effect by Operation of Law. On October 7, 2019, the requests for rehearing were denied by operation of law. On October 30, 2019, a number of stakeholders filed a Petition for Review of the August 6 Notice at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) under Case No. 19-1224. On June 18, 2020, the Commission issued an order accepting the proposed revisions to the ISO-NE Tariff, finding that the Inventoried Energy Program is just and reasonable. On July 17, 2020, a number of stakeholders filed respective requests for rehearing of the June 18 approval order. On October 19, 2020, a number of stakeholders filed an Amended Petition for Review at the DC Circuit under Case No. 19-1247.
E-9 – KES Kingsburg, L.P. (Docket No. ER21-1816-001). KES Kingsburg, L.P. (Kingsburg) submitted a notice of retirement of its 34.5 MW natural gas-fired generating facility. The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) notified Kingsburg that the facility was needed to maintain reliable operation of the transmission system from May 2021 to December 31, 2021. On April 30, 2021, Kingsburg filed an unexecuted Reliability Must-Run Service Agreement with CAISO at the Commission. Respectively, CAISO, Southern California Edison, the California Public Utilities Commission, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company each intervened and protested the filing. On June 29, 2021, the Commission issued its Order Accepting and Suspending Reliability Must-Run Agreement and Establishing Hearing and Settlement Judge Procedures. The Commission accepted the Reliability Must-Run Agreement for filing, suspended it for a nominal period, to become effective May 1, 2021, subject to refund, and set the Reliability Must-Run Agreement for hearing and settlement judge procedures. On June 30, 2022, Kingsburg offered an uncontested offer of settlement, which Commission Trial Staff filed comments in support of on July 20, 2022. On July 22, 2022, the Chief Judge submitted a certification of the uncontested offer of settlement and on August 1 terminated the settlement procedures. Agenda item E-9 is likely an order on King’s uncontested offer of settlement for its Reliability Must-Run Agreement.
E-10 – Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER20-681-005, ER20-681-006, EL22-28-000). On December 27, 2021, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State) submitted its triennial market power update for the Southwest and Northwest regions for the December 1, 2019 to November 30, 2020 period. In addition, Tri-State submitted a notice of change in status to inform the Commission of its long-term power purchase agreement with Niyol Wind, LLC, which commenced selling the output of a 200 megawatt wind facility to Tri-State to serve Tri-State load within the Western Area Power Administration – Colorado-Missouri (WACM) in fall 2021. On February 28, 2022, the Commission, in light of Tri-State’s failed wholesale market share indicative screen in the WACM balancing authority area (BAA), issued an order instituting a section 206 investigation in Docket No. EL-22-28 to determine whether Tri-State may continue to charge market-based rates (MBR) in the WACM BAA, established a refund effective date, and directed Tri-State to show cause as to why the Commission should not revoke Tri-State’s MBR authority in the WACM BAA. On March 25, 2022, the Commission also issued a letter requesting additional information regarding Tri-State’s Triennial Update. On April 29, 2022, Tri-State filed its response to the Order to Show Cause and Deficiency Letter. Agenda item E-10 may be an order on Tri-State’s April 29, 2022 response.
E-11 – Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. (Docket No. ER21-57-002). On May 20, 2022, Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. (Shell) filed a request of rehearing of the Commission April 20 decision in Shell Energy North America (US), L.P., 179 FERC ¶ 61,034 (2022) requiring a refund for sales in excess of the soft cap in the WECC spot market. On May 23, 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) also submitted rehearing request. On June 29, 2022, the Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF) and the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) filed comments regarding several concerns they had with the Commission’s approach in several WECC Soft Offer Cap cases, arguing they threaten the Mobile-Sierra doctrine on freely negotiated wholesale transactions including Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. Agenda item E-11 may be an order on the original rehearing request and a response to the WPTF and EPSA comments.
E-12 – Tenaska Power Services Co. (Docket No. ER21-42-001). On May 20, 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) submitted rehearing request of the Commission’s April 22, 2022 order, Tenaska Power Servs. Co., 179 FERC ¶ 61,030 (2022), on Tenaska Power Services Co.’s (TPS) filings justifying the spot sales in the Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC) region during August 2020 at prices exceeding the “soft” cap of $1,000/MWh. On May 23, 2022, TPS also filed a request for rehearing of the Commission’s April 22, 2022 order. On June 29, 2022, the Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF) and the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) filed comments regarding several concerns they had with the Commission’s approach in several WECC Soft Offer Cap cases, arguing they threaten the Mobile-Sierra doctrine on freely negotiated wholesale transactions including Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. Agenda item E-12 may be an order on the original rehearing request and a response to the WPTF and EPSA comments.
E-13 – Mercuria Energy America, LLC (Docket No. ER21-46-001). On May 20, 2022, Mercuria Energy America, LLC (Mercuria) filed a request of rehearing of the Commission’s April 20, 2022 decision in Mercuria Energy America, LLC, 179 FERC ¶ 61,033 (2022), which addressed 11 wholesale spot power contracts that Mercuria executed at fixed-prices above the “soft price cap” the Commission established for the WECC region and directing refunds. On May 23, 2022, the Southern California Edison also submitted a rehearing request of the decision. On June 29, 2022, the Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF) and the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) filed comments regarding several concerns they had with the Commission’s approach in several WECC Soft Offer Cap cases, arguing they threaten the Mobile-Sierra doctrine on freely negotiated wholesale transactions including Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. Agenda item E-13 may be an order on the original rehearing request and a response to the WPTF and EPSA comments.
E-14 – Southwest Power Pool, Inc., GridLiance High Plains LLC (Docket Nos. ER18-2358-001, ER19-1357-000, ER20-1313-000 (consolidated)). Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted, pursuant to Section 205 of the FPA, proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff) to add an annual transmission revenue requirement for certain GridLiance High Plains LLC (GridLiance) facilities located in the Oklahoma panhandle (Oklahoma Assets) once GridLiance transfers functional control of those facilities to SPP. On October 31, 2018, the Commission accepted and suspended SPP’s proposed revisions become effective November 1, 2018, subject to refund and established hearing and settlement judge procedures in Docket No. ER18-2358-000. On March 15, 2019, GridLiance submitted its annual informational filing in Docket No. ER19-1357-000, reflecting its projected net revenue requirement for the 2019 rate year. On July 1, 2019, Xcel Energy Services Inc. (Xcel), filed Motions to Intervene and Consolidate and Formal Challenge (Formal Challenge). In the Formal Challenge, Xcel argued that the Oklahoma Assets should not have been included in the annual informational filing because they have not demonstrated eligibility of recovery as transmission facilities. On October 17, 2019, the Commission set the formal challenge for hearing and settlement judge procedures and consolidated Docket Nos. ER18-2358-001 and ER19-1357-000. The settlement procedures remain ongoing but the last briefs submitted by FERC trial staff, GridLiance, and SPP were submitted on July 26, 2021, respectively. Agenda item E-14 may be order with respect to a formal challenge and motion to consolidate requested in the dockets of agenda items E-15 and E-16. Please see below for further details.
E-15 – GridLiance High Plains LLC (Docket No. ER22-1353-000). On March 15, 2022, GridLiance High Plains LLC (GridLiance) submitted its 2022 Annual True-Up Informational filing including its proposed 2022 Annual Transmission Revenue Requirement (ATRR). On April 13, 2022, Xcel Energy Services Inc. (Xcel) submitted a Formal Challenge and Motion to Consolidate Item E-15 with the proceedings in agenda item E-14. Xcel challenged certain inputs to the formula rate and argued that consolidation was proper because the ATRR issues are related to those in Docket No. ER18-2358-000 relating to the zonal placement of GridLiance’s facilities and the justness and reasonableness of rate recovery of those facilities. Further, Xcel argued that if the facilities are all identical to those under consideration in Docket No. ER18-2358 (which it cannot confirm based on the information provided), consolidation is entirely appropriate as it ensures the issues examined in Docket No. ER18-2358 will be implemented by GridLiance as part of its 2022 ATRR. GridLiance filed its Answer to Xcel’s Formal Challenge and Request to Consolidate on May 13, 2022. Agenda item E-15 may be an order on the Formal Challenge and Request to Consolidate as it relates to agenda items 14, 15, and 16.
E-16 – GridLiance High Plains LLC (Docket No. ER21-1438-000). On March 15, 2021, GridLiance High Plains LLC (GridLiance) filed its Annual Informational Filing for Rate Year 2021 and its Projected Net Transmission Revenue Requirement and Rate Year 2019 True-Up Adjustment. On April 15, 2021, Xcel Energy Services Inc. (Xcel) submitted a Motion to Intervene and Consolidate and Formal Challenge with the proceedings in agenda item E-14. Xcel challenged certain inputs to the formula rate and argued that consolidation was proper because the ATRR issues are related to those in Docket No. ER18-2358-000 relating to the zonal placement of GridLiance’s facilities and the justness and reasonableness of rate recovery of those facilities. Further, Xcel argued that because the legal and factual issues in Docket No. ER21-1438-000 are closely related to the issued in Docket No. ER18-2358 consolidation is appropriate. GridLiance filed its Answer to Xcel’s Formal Challenge and Request to Consolidate on June 25, 2021. Xcel filed a response on July 12, 2021 and GridLiance filed a reply on July 27, 2021. Agenda item E-16 may be an order on the Formal Challenge and Request to Consolidate as it relates to agenda items 14, 15, and 16.
Gas
G-1 – MountainWest Overthrust Pipeline, LLC (Docket No. RP22-1118-000). Agenda item G-1 has not yet been populated with a formal record in the eLibrary database. The proceeding may reflect a new or revised rate filing proposed by MountainWest Overthrust Pipeline, LLC.
G-2 – Stagecoach Pipeline & Storage Company LLC (Docket No. RP22-1121-000). Agenda item G-2 has not yet been populated with a formal record in the eLibrary database. The proceeding may reflect a new or revised rate filing proposed by Stagecoach Pipeline & Storage Company LLC.
Hydro
H-1 – The Town of Rollinsford, New Hampshire (Docket No. P-3777-013). On August 29, 2019, the Town of Rollinsford, New Hampshire (Rollinsford) filed an application for a subsequent license to continue operating and maintaining the Rollinsford Hydroelectric Project, pursuant to Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA). On June 25, 2020, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) submitted substantive comments, recommending that the Commission account for any future activities carried out by the licensee that may affect a listed species, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), not originally contemplated during the review of the license renewal application. On June 16, 2022, the Commission issued an order granting the license renewal to Rollinsford. On July 8, 2022, the US Department of the Interior (DOI) filed a request for rehearing of the June 16 order, stating that the Commission rejected the prospect of notification by the licensee regarding any activities that would invoke the ESA under FWS jurisdiction. Agenda item H-1 may be an order on the request for rehearing as brought forward by the DOI.
H-2 – Pacific Gas and Electric Company and City of Santa Clara (Docket No. P-619-174). On December 12, 2016, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and City of Santa Clara (collectively, Licensees) submitted an application for a new license for the Bucks Creek Hydroelectric Project. The Commission originally issued the license for the project in 1974, with an extension issued in 1988 to bring the license term to December 31, 2018. On October 22, 2020, the California State Water Resource Control Board submitted the water quality certification (WCQ) for the Project, pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). On November 20, 2020, Licensees submitted a petition for reconsideration of the application and modification of various conditions, citing a number of internal inconsistencies and infeasibility of implementation. On June 16, 2022, the Commission issued an order on the application, granting a new license with a 40-year term. On July 18, 2022, Licensees filed a request for rehearing and/or clarification of the June 16 order, stating that a 50-year term should be approved due to the capital expenditures anticipated during future operation of the Project as well as modifying the WQC conditions in the circumstance whereupon the WQC is reconsidered and changed. Agenda item H-2 may be an order on the request for rehearing as brought forward by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and City of Santa Clara.
H-3 – Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC (Docket No. P-2530-057). On November 20, 2020, Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC (White Pine Hydro) submitted the Final License Application for the Hiram Hydroelectric Project. The application proposes the conditions of continued maintenance and operations of the existing dam and does not include any additional capacity. The Commission issued the original license for the Project on December 22, 1982 for a 40-year term, expiring on November 30, 2022. On March 10, 2021, the DOI filed substantive comments on the license application, including a number of recommendations and prescriptions to mitigate potential environmental impacts. On September 22, 2021, the Commission issued the Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for the Project, finding that the proposed Staff alternative reflects the best course of action to renew the license while including measures to protect and enhance fisheries, recreation, and cultural resources; additionally, the Draft EA recommends that any license issuance include proposed mitigation measures proposed by White Pine Hydro in the original application. On April 20, 2022, the Commission issued the Final EA for the Project, affirming the guidance furnished in the Draft EA by integrating the Staff alternative mitigation measures into evaluation of the Project and, ultimately, approval for the license. Agenda item H-3 may be an order on the final license application as brought forward by White Pine Hydro.
Certificates
C-1 – Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Docket No. CP20-527-001). On September 24, 2020, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf) filed an application requesting Commission authorization to construct and operate the East Lateral XPress Project (Project). The Project involves the construction of facilities in St. Mary, Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parishes in Louisiana in order to provide an additional 183,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of firm interstate natural gas transportation service. Columbia Gulf proposed to use this capacity, along with 542,000 Dth/d of existing available service, to provide 725,000 Dth/d of service for Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC (Venture Global), for delivery to Venture Global’s Plaquemines LNG terminal for ultimate export. On March 25, 2022, the Commission issued an order (Order) granting the certificate authorization requested by Columbia Gulf. On April 25, 2022, Sierra Club and Healthy Gulf submitted a request for rehearing of the Order (Rehearing Request). In its Rehearing Request, Sierra Club and Healthy Gulf argued that the Commission unlawfully refused to consider greenhouse gas emissions in its public interest analysis and to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions are significant. Sierra Club and Healthy Gulf also argued that the Commission unlawfully segmented its environmental review, by considering the Project separately from other pipeline projects that would also supply gas to Venture Global’s Plaquemines LNG terminal. Sierra Club and Healthy Gulf further alleged that the Commission failed to adequately consider impacts to bottlenose dolphins and failed to demonstrate that the Project provides public benefits sufficient to outweigh its adverse impacts. On May 11, 2022, Columbia Gulf filed a motion for leave to answer and answer (Answer) to the Rehearing Request. In its Answer, Columbia Gulf argued that the Commission correctly evaluated and disclosed the direct emissions from the Project and correctly determined that estimated indirect downstream emissions were not within the purview of its environmental review in light of the export-oriented nature of the Project. Columbia Gulf also countered in its Answer that the Commission correctly conducted its cumulative impacts analysis in evaluating the cumulative impacts of relevant projects, and also sufficiently identified potential impacts to bottlenose dolphins before concluding such impacts would be temporary and minor. Columbia Gulf further argued in its Answer that the Commission properly determined that the Project will provide public benefits, in light of the fact that the Project capacity is fully subscribed under a precedent agreement with a non-affiliate of Columbia Gulf for export as liquefied natural gas. Agenda item C-1 may be an order on the Rehearing Request.
C-2 – Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (Docket Nos. CP20-50-001, CP20-51-001). On February 7, 2020, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) filed an application requesting Commission authorization to construct and operate the Evangeline Pass Expansion Project (Project). The Project consists of compression facilities, looping pipelines, and leased capacity, and is designed to provide up to 1,100,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of incremental firm transportation service to Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC (Venture Global) from a new interconnect with Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (SNG) at Rose Hill located in Clarke County, Mississippi to a new interconnect with Venture Global Gator Express Pipeline, LLC’s Gator Express Pipeline located in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, in order to provide an additional 183,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of firm interstate natural gas transportation service. The Project will supply feed gas for Venture Global’s natural gas liquefaction and liquefied natural gas export facility in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. On March 25, 2022, the Commission issued an order (Order) granting the certificate authorization requested by Tennessee. On April 25, 2022, various intervenors submitted requests for rehearing of the Order. Sierra Club and Healthy Gulf argued in their rehearing request that the Commission unlawfully refused to consider greenhouse gas emissions in its public interest analysis and to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions are significant. Sierra Club and Healthy Gulf also argued that the Commission unlawfully segmented its environmental review, by considering the Project separately from other pipeline projects that would also supply gas to Venture Global’s Plaquemines LNG terminal, from such terminal itself, and from the proposed expansion of such terminal. Sierra Club and Healthy Gulf further alleged that the Commission failed to demonstrate that the Project provides public benefits sufficient to outweigh its adverse impacts. Various municipal gas authorities and distributors separately argued in their rehearing request that the Commission failed to credit any revenues from the lease by SNG to Tennessee (its affiliate), resulting in incremental rates that will allow Tennessee to over-recover its costs. On May 10, 2022, Tennessee and SNG filed a motion for leave to answer and limited answer (Answer) to the rehearing request filed by Sierra Club and Healthy Gulf (Sierra Club Rehearing Request). In its Answer, Tennessee and SNG argued that the Commission must reject the Sierra Club Rehearing Request because it fails to provide the “Statement of Issues” required under Section 713(c)(2) of the Commission’s regulations. Tennessee and SNG further argued in their Answer that the Commission correctly applied Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to the Project in light of the fact that the Project will transport natural gas in interstate commerce. Tennessee and SNG also countered in their Answer that the Commission correctly found that Project is required by the public convenience and necessity, given Tennessee’s precedent agreement for 100 percent of the Project’s firm capacity. Tennessee and SNG further stated in their Answer that the Commission’s environmental review complied with the National Environmental Policy Act, and that the Commission was not required to make a “significance” determination for the Project because, having prepared an environmental impact statement, nothing more was required of the Commission with respect to its environmental review of the Project. Agenda item C-2 may be an order on the various rehearing requests.
C-3 – Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Docket No. CP21-463-000). On June 17, 2021, Texas Eastern filed an application (Application) requesting Commission authorization to construct and operate the Holbrook Compressor Units Replacement Project (Project). The Project consists of abandoning 12 existing reciprocating compressor units at the Holbrook Compressor Station located in Richhill Township, Greene County, Pennsylvania, and replacing them with two new, more efficient gas turbines. On May 12, 2022, Commission staff issued an environmental assessment for the Project (EA). In the EA, Commission staff found that while the Project would result in some 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 and recommendations discussed in the EA. Agenda item C-3 may be an order on the Application.
C-4 – ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd. (Docket No. CP22-479-000). On July 5, 2022, ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd. (ETC Texas) filed a petition for a declaratory order (PDO) from the Commission finding that, upon ETC Texas’s proposed acquisition of a portion of Line FT-2 facilities form Enable Gas Transmission, LLC (Enable), ETC Texas’s ownership and use of such facilities will be exempt from Commission jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Specifically, ETC Texas asserted in its PDO that such acquired portion of the Line FT-2 facilities will qualify as gathering facilities under the Commission’s modified “primary function test,” and should therefore be exempt from the Commission’s jurisdiction under NGA Section 1(b). Agenda item C-4 may be an order on the PDO.
C-5 – Owen Stanley Parker v. Permian Highway Pipeline LLC, et. al, (Docket No. CP22-451-000). On April 14, 2022, Owen Stanley Parker, in his individual capacity, filed a complaint (Complaint) against Permian Highway Pipeline LLC, Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline LLC, Kinder Morgan Inc., EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC, Altus Midstream Energy, and ExxonMobil Permian Highway Pipeline LLC (collectively, the Pipeline Companies) alleging various violations related to the Permian Highway Pipeline. Specifically, Mr. Parker alleged that the Pipeline Companies improperly characterized the Permian Highway Pipeline as intrastate and therefore incorrectly relied on Texas state condemnation authority to acquire the necessary easements or rights of way for the Permian Highway Pipeline. In his Complaint, Mr. Parker contended that the Permian Highway Pipeline is instead an interstate natural gas pipeline subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission pursuant to the Natural Gas Act (NGA), arguing that natural gas does not need to cross a state border to be considered an interstate movement of natural gas so long as its destination is across a state line or is otherwise commingled with “interstate gas.” The Complaint requests the Commission exercise jurisdiction over the Permian Highway Pipeline, declare that the Pipeline Companies are depriving landowners of their rights under the NGA and FERC’s regulations, policies, and precedent and had no legal right to condemn their property, further declare that the Pipeline Companies violated the NGA, and enjoin the Pipeline Companies from continuing condemnation actions against landowners or operating the Permian Highway Pipeline until the Commission issues a certificate for the Permian Highway Pipeline. Mr. Parker also requests the Commission assess penalties of up to $1 billion against the Pipeline Companies, with a portion to be placed in a repository for distribution to impacted landowners. On May 31, 2022, Permian Highway Pipeline LLC (PHP) submitted an answer (Answer) to the Complaint. In its Answer, PHP asserts that it properly constructed and operates the Permian Highway Pipeline as an intrastate pipeline. PHP noted that the Commission has previously accepted PHP’s proposed transportation rates for interruptible transportation service provided pursuant to Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA). PHP further argues that the Complaint fails because it wholly ignores and does not address the applicable statutory regime (the NGPA). PHP asserts that it is not subject to the Commission’s NGA jurisdiction because it is not an interstate pipeline. PHP points out that the Commission has repeatedly held that pipelines located entirely within one state that begin operations by providing exclusively intrastate transportation services are not subject to the Commission’s NGA jurisdiction. PHP also contends that the mere interconnection of the Permian Highway Pipeline with interstate pipelines does not implicate NGA Section 7 jurisdiction over the construction or operation of the Permian Highway Pipeline. Agenda item C-5 may be an order on the Complaint.
C-6 – Hummel Generation, LLC v. UGI Sunbury, LLC (Docket No. RP22-678-000). On March 4, 2022, Hummel Generation, LLC (Hummel) filed a complaint (Complaint) against UGI Sunbury, LLC (UGI). In its Complaint, Hummel seeks a determination by the Commission that UGI’s Sunbury Pipeline is a Hinshaw pipeline exempt from the Commission’s jurisdiction and vacatur of the certificate authorization granted to UGI for the Sunbury Pipeline. Hummel asserts that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the Sunbury Pipeline because it receives natural gas within Pennsylvania, all of the natural gas transported on the Sunbury Pipeline is consumed within Pennsylvania, and the Sunbury Pipeline is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC). The Complaint alleges that the Commission improvidently issued certificate authorization to the Sunbury Pipeline in 2016, despite lacking jurisdiction over the Sunbury Pipeline. On March 24, 2022, UGI submitted an answer (Answer) to the Complaint, countering that Hummel failed to establish that the Sunbury Pipeline is a Hinshaw pipeline that is exempt from the Commission’s jurisdiction under Section 1(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). UGI asserted in its Answer that Hummel failed to show that UGI’s facilities, rates, and service are, or even could be, subject to regulation by the Pennsylvania PUC. On April 1, 2022, Hummel submitted a response (Response) to the Answer, asserting that NGA Section 1(c) neither imposes a certification requirement on a state nor imposes a requirement that a state exercise its authority in order for the Hinshaw exemption to apply. The Response claims that Hummel has provided unrefuted substantive evidence consisting of both statutory authority and caselaw demonstrating that the Sunbury Pipeline “subject to” the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania PUC. The Response also claims that all other arguments raised by UGI in its Answer are irrelevant red herrings that are intended to distract the Commission from the single legal issue being presented in the Complaint: whether the record supports a finding that the Sunbury Pipeline satisfies the three-prong statutory requirements of a Hinshaw pipeline. Hummel points out in its Response that UGI has conceded that the Sunbury Pipeline satisfies the first two prongs of the Commission’s three-pronged test for Hinshaw pipelines. On April 8, 2022, UGI filed a motion for leave to answer and answer (Second Answer) to the Response, asserting that the Response fails to remedies the defects identified by UGI in its initial Answer. In its Second Answer, UGI cites precedent in which the Commission held that an explicit assertion of jurisdiction by the state regulator was essential to its determination as to whether the Hinshaw exemption applies, and points out that such assertion is patently absent here. UGI argues that Hummel appears to be no longer satisfied with the commercial bargain that its predecessors-in-interest struck, and is attempting to wield the NGA against UGI to enhance Hummel’s commercial position. Agenda item C-6 may be an order on the Complaint.
C-7 – LA Storage, LLC (Docket No. CP21-44-000). On January 29, 2021, LA Storage, LLC (LA Storage) filed an application (Application) requesting Commission authorization to construct and operate the Hackberry Storage Project (Project). The Project consists of modifying existing industrial facilities and constructing new facilities in order to operate a new natural gas storage facility on 89.5 acres within a 160-acre tract of land that it owns in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Within such gas storage facility, LA Storage would convert three existing salt dome caverns and develop one new salt dome cavern for natural gas storage service. The Project would also include the construction of the Cameron Interstate Pipeline Lateral, the Hackberry Pipeline, metering and regulating facilities, four saltwater disposal wells and brine transportation lines, and other related auxiliary facilities and appurtenances. The purpose of the Project is to construct and operate a high-deliverability natural gas storage facility in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, capable of providing 20.03 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of working gas storage capacity and 1.5 Bcf per day of gas deliverability and injectability. On December 17, 2021, Commission staff issued a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Project. On April 8, 2022, Commission staff issued a final EIS for the Project. In the final EIS, Commission staff concluded that the construction and operation of the Project would result in limited adverse environmental impacts, and that most adverse environmental impacts would be temporary or short-term during construction. Commission staff also determined in the final EIS that some long-term and permanent environmental impacts would occur on some soils, wetlands, and forest, that aboveground facilities would result in some permanent visual impacts, and that operation of the Pelican Compressor Station would result in air emissions and noise throughout the life of the Project. The final EIS does not characterize the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions as significant or insignificant. The final EIS also concluded that impacts for the remainder of the assessed resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through implementation of Commission staff’s recommendations included in the final EIS. Commission staff recommended that those Project-specific recommendations be attached as conditions to any certificate authorization issued by the Commission for the Project. Agenda item C-7 may be an order on the Application.
C-8 – West Texas Gas, Inc. and West Texas Gas Utility, LLC (Docket No. CP22-474-000). On June 16, 2022, West Texas Gas, Inc. and West Texas Gas Utility, LLC submitted an application to transfer authorizations, pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Presidential Permits. The authorizations were previously granted by the Commission in 2002 in order to allow West Texas Gas, Inc. to construct, operate, and maintain three respective natural gas pipelines and associated facilities at the border of the United States and Mexico. According to the application, the proposed transfer authorization would not modify existing service and would enable West Texas Utility, LLC to continue to export natural gas to Mexico following the effectuation of change in ownership between the entities. On July 1, 2022, the Commission issued the Environmental Assessment, finding that the proposed action consists only of a transfer of facility ownership and regulatory permits and no new or additional environmental impacts would be reasonably implicated. Agenda item C-8 may be an order on the first of three orders on the transfer of permits from West Texas Gas, Inc. to West Texas Gas Utility, LLC.
C-9 – West Texas Gas, Inc. and West Texas Gas Utility, LLC (Docket No. CP22-475-000). On June 16, 2022, West Texas Gas, Inc. and West Texas Gas Utility, LLC submitted an application to transfer authorizations, pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Presidential Permits. The authorizations were previously granted by the Commission in 2002 in order to allow West Texas Gas, Inc. to construct, operate, and maintain three respective natural gas pipelines and associated facilities at the border of the United States and Mexico. According to the application, the proposed transfer authorization would not modify existing service and would enable West Texas Utility, LLC to continue to export natural gas to Mexico following the effectuation of change in ownership between the entities. On July 1, 2022, the Commission issued the Environmental Assessment, finding that the proposed action consists only of a transfer of facility ownership and regulatory permits and no new or additional environmental impacts would be reasonably implicated. Agenda item C-9 may be an order on the second of three orders on the transfer of permits from West Texas Gas, Inc. to West Texas Gas Utility, LLC.
C-10 – West Texas Gas, Inc. and West Texas Gas Utility, LLC (Docket No. CP22-476-000). On June 16, 2022, West Texas Gas, Inc. and West Texas Gas Utility, LLC submitted an application to transfer authorizations, pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Presidential Permits. The authorizations were previously granted by the Commission in 2002 in order to allow West Texas Gas, Inc. to construct, operate, and maintain three respective natural gas pipelines and associated facilities at the border of the United States and Mexico. According to the application, the proposed transfer authorization would not modify existing service and would enable West Texas Utility, LLC to continue to export natural gas to Mexico following the effectuation of change in ownership between the entities. On July 1, 2022, the Commission issued the Environmental Assessment, finding that the proposed action consists only of a transfer of facility ownership and regulatory permits and no new or additional environmental impacts would be reasonably implicated. Agenda item C-10 may be an order on the third of three orders on the transfer of permits from West Texas Gas, Inc. to West Texas Gas Utility, LLC.
1 3 Phases Renewables Inc.; 3C Solar LLC; 3Degrees Group, Inc.; 3PR Trading, Inc.; ABC Energy, LLC; ADG Group Inc.; Air Liquide; American Illuminating Company, LLC; American PowerNet Management, LP; Anahau Energy, LLC; APN Starfirst, LP; Apple Group; Archer Energy, LLC; Ashley Energy LLC; Backyard Farms Energy LLC; Baltimore Power Company LLC; Berry Petroleum Company, LLC; BioUrja Power, LLC; BITH Energy, Inc.; BITH Solar 1, LLC; Blue Cube Operations LLC; Bolt Energy, LLC; Brantley Farm Solar, LLC; Bridgeport Fuel Cell, LLC; Buckleberry Solar, LLC; Burgess Capital LLC; Cambria Wind, LLC; Capacity Markets Partners, LLC; Cargill Power Markets, LLC; Carson Hybrid Energy Storage LLC; Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation; Centre Lane Trading Ltd.; Choctaw Generation Limited Partnership; Cirrus Wind 1, LLC; Clear Power LLC; Clearview Electric, Inc.; Command Power Corp.; Conch Energy Trading, LLC; Consolidated Power Co., LLC; Cooperative Energy Incorporated (An Electric Membership Corporation); Covanta Maine, LLC; Crawfordsville Energy, LLC; Current Power & Gas Inc.; Degrees3 Transportation Solutions, LLC; Devonshire Energy LLC; Dichotomy Power Maine, LLC; Dillon Power, LLC; Domtar A.W. LLC; Domtar Paper Company, LLC; Durgin and Crowell Lumber Company, Inc.; EBRFUEL, LLC; El Paso Marketing Company, L.L.C.; Electron Hydro, LLC; Elektrisola, Inc.; Elevation Energy Group, LLC; Energy Cooperative of New York, Inc; Energy Exchange Direct, LLC; Energy Exchange International, LLC; EnPowered; Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc.; EONY Generation Limited; ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Complex; ExxonMobil Beaumont Complex; ExxonMobil LaBarge Shute Creek Treating Facility; Falcon Energy,LLC; FC Energy Services Company, LLC; FOREST INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; Fox Creek Farm Solar, LLC; Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.; Full Circle Renewables, LLC; Garland Power Company; Gateway Energy Marketing; GBC Metals LLC; Gichi Noodin Wind Farm, LLC; Global Energy, LLC; Griffiss Utility Services Corporation; GUSC Energy Inc.; Hammond Belgrade Energy, LLC; Harvard Dedicated Energy Limited; Hawkeye Energy Greenport, LLC; Helvetia Solar, LLC; High Liner Foods Incorporated; High Lonesome Mesa, LLC; Hill Energy Resource & Services, LLC; Holcim (US) Inc.; Homer City Generation, L.P.; Hoopeston Wind, LLC; ICC Energy Corporation; IEP Power Marketing LLC; Industrial Assets, Inc.; Innovative Solar 54, LLC; Innovative Solar 67, LLC; Jether Energy Research, LTD; Keni Energy LLC; KEPCO Solar of Alamosa LLC; Kingfisher Wind, LLC; Kiyoshi Technologies, LLC; Kleantricity, Inc.; KODA Energy, LLC; Lazarus Energy Holdings, LLC; LE Energy, LLC; Light Power & Gas LLC; Lockport Energy Associates, L.P.; Long Island Solar Farm, LLC; Longreach Energy, LLC; Major Lending, LLC; Manifold Energy Inc.; Mansfield Power and Gas, LLC; Maple Analytics, LLC; Marengo Battery Storage, LLC; Massie Power LLC; Mega Energy Holdings LLC; Mitsui & Co. Energy Marketing and Services (USA), Inc; MMP SCO, L L C; Mobile Energy LLC; Monterey Consulting Associates, Inc.; Moore Energy, LLC; Myotis Power Marketing LLC; National Gas & Electric, LLC; Nevada Gold Energy LLC; New England Wire Technologies, Corp.; New Hope Power Partnership; New York Industrial Energy Buyers, LLC; NFI Solar, LLC; North Branch Resources, LLC; Novo BioPower, LLC; NTE Southeast Electric Company, LLC; Nylon Corporation of America; One Nation Energy Solutions, LLC; PACE RENEWABLE ENERGY 1 LLC; PGPV, LLC; Phibro Americas LLC; Piedmont Energy Fund, LP; Planet Energy (Maryland) Corp.; Planet Energy (New York) Corp.; Planet Energy (Pennsylvania) Corp.; Planet Energy (USA) Corp.; Power Choice, Inc.; Precept Power LLC; Premier Empire Energy, LLC; Quantum Power Corp; Raider Dog LLC; RDAF Energy Solutions, LLC; Renaissance Power, L.L.C.; Renewable Power Direct, LLC; Renewable Power Strategies, LLC; ResCom Energy LLC; Reuel Energy LLC; Rigby Energy Resources, LP; RJUMR ENERGY PARTNERS CORP.; RLD Resources, LLC; Roseburg Forest Products; Sage Solar I LLC; Sage Solar II LLC; Sage Solar III LLC; Saint Anselm College; Samchully Power & Utilities 1 LLC; Santanna Natural Gas Corporation; SBR Energy, LLC; Seguro Energy Partners, LLC; Shipyard Energy, LLC; Silver Bear Power, LLC; Smith Creek Hydro, LLC; Southard Energy Partners, LLC; Southern California Telephone Company; Southern Energy Solution Group, LLC; Spruance Genco, LLC; Stand Energy Corporation; Sunbury Energy, LLC; Sustainable Star; Texzon Utilities, Ltd.; The Energy Group of America, Inc.; The Highlands Energy Group; The Legacy Energy Group, LLC; Thicksten Grimm Burgum, Inc.; Thordin ApS; Titan Gas and Power; Town of Hanover; Trane Grid Services LLC; Tropicana Manufacturing Company Inc.; TrueLight Commodities, LLC; TrueLight Energy, LLC; UBS AG; US Borax, Inc.; V3 Commodities Group, LLC; Viridity Energy, Inc.; Vista Energy Marketing, L.P.; Volunteer Energy Services, Inc.; Western Aeon Energy Trading LLC; Western Reserve Energy Services, LLC; White Pine Electric Power L.L.C.; Windy Flats Partners, LLC; Wolverine Holdings, L.P.; Woodland Pulp LLC; Woomera Energy, LLC; Z&Y Energy Trading LLC; Zone One Energy, LLC.
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
