Katherine O'Konski

Subscribe to Katherine O'Konski's Posts

 

 

On September 30, 2020, FERC accepted the California Independent System Operator Corporation’s (“CAISO”) proposals to: 1) permit electric vehicle charging stations to participate in CAISO’s demand response program separately from their host facilities (“EV Proposal”); and 2) incentivize behind-the-meter energy storage in CAISO’s demand response programs to “load shift” by consuming energy during over supply conditions and returning that energy to the system during times of need (“Load Shifting Proposal”). FERC held that CAISO’s proposals would enhance its demand response programs, which compensate load, storage, and generation resources for curtailing their demand in response to CAISO’s instructions. FERC also found that the proposals would ensure that CAISO’s policies keep pace with rapidly evolving electric vehicle and behind-the-meter storage technologies, and would permit these resources to participate in the CAISO market under rules that capture their unique characteristics and benefits.

On September 17, 2020, FERC addressed the American Wind Energy Association’s (“AWEA”) request for rehearing of a December 2019 order finding that Generator Interconnection Agreements (“GIAs”), Facilities Construction Agreements (“FCAs”) and Multi-Party Facilities Construction Agreements (“MPFCAs”) entered into between June 24, 2015 and August 31, 2018 (“the interim period”) should be revised to allow Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) transmission owners and affected system operators to unilaterally elect to provide the initial funding for interconnection-related network upgrades. FERC’s September 17 order modified the discussion in the December 2019 order but continued to reach the same result. The order also accepted MISO’s proposed tariff sheets allowing transmission owners and affected system operators to elect transmission owner initial funding for network upgrades for GIAs, FCAs, and MPFCAs that became effective during the interim period. Commissioner Richard Glick issued a dissenting opinion in which he concluded that FERC’s order failed to meaningfully address concerns of undue discrimination and ignored evidence that allowing transmission owners and affected system operators to retroactively elect to self-fund network upgrades would result in substantial harm to interconnection customers and could lead to project terminations.

On September 17, 2020, at FERC’s Virtual Open Meeting, FERC Staff presented an overview of changes to its rehearing practices following the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s (“D.C. Circuit”) recent decision in Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC, 963 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc) (“Allegheny”), which rejected FERC’s practice of issuing “tolling orders” to grant itself more time to consider requests for rehearing (see July 1, 2020 issue of the WER). Staff explained that the changes to FERC’s rehearing practices are intended to allow appeals of FERC orders to proceed in a timely manner and on a complete administrative record. While the D.C. Circuit granted FERC’s motion to stay the court’s mandate in July (see July 29, 2020 edition of the WER), Staff explained in response to questions from FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee that Staff expects the D.C. Circuit to issue its mandate in early October.

On September 4, 2020, FERC rejected the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.’s (“NYISO”) proposed revisions to its buyer-side mitigation (“BSM”) rules that sought to prioritize storage, wind, solar, and other zero-emitting resources (“Public Policy Resources”) in NYISO’s Installed Capacity (“ICAP”) Market, rather than prioritizing new resources purely on a least-cost basis. While NYISO argued the state’s carbon and nitrogen oxide emissions reduction goals mean that a resource’s cost structure is no longer the best predictor of whether it will ultimately be developed, FERC held that NYISO’s proposal was unduly discriminatory because it prioritized Public Policy Resources over other non-Public Policy Resources. The decision sparked a dissent from Commissioner Richard Glick, who characterized FERC’s order as appearing to stake out the “radical” position that it is improper for NYISO to design its Tariff in a way that acknowledges state public policies, and a departure from FERC precedent focused on balancing the effects of state policies with measures to address how those policies affect capacity market prices.

On August 27, 2020, FERC directed further briefing and established a technical conference in the proceedings arising from two complaints in which American Electric Power Service Corporation (“AEP”) and the City of Prescott, Arkansas each alleged that they were subject to overlapping or duplicative congestion charges on load that is pseudo-tied out of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) into Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (“SPP”). FERC’s August 27 order responded to additional briefing by the parties ordered in September 2019, and held that even after the additional briefing, the record was inadequate to determine whether: (1) mechanisms including virtual transactions, Financial Transmission Rights, and firm flow entitlements are sufficient to remedy any potential for overlapping congestion charges; or (2) the Regional Transmission Organizations (“RTOs”) must make changes to their Joint Operating Agreement (“JOA”) and/or their individual tariffs to remedy the causes of overlapping or duplicative congestion charges. The August 27 order therefore required additional briefing, and directed Commission staff to hold a technical conference after further briefs are filed.

On July 17, 2020, FERC issued three orders relating to the executed cost-of-service agreement (“Mystic Agreement”) among Constellation Mystic Power, LLC (“Mystic”), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (“Exelon”), and ISO New England Inc. (“ISO-NE”).  The Mystic Agreement provides for cost-of-service compensation to Mystic for the continued operation of two gas-fired generating units.  In the first two orders, FERC addressed requests for rehearing of its 2018 orders accepting the Mystic Agreement (the “July 2018 Order” and the “December 2018 Order”), including its conclusion that Mystic should recover from ratepayers 91% of the operating costs of the Everett Marine Terminal (“Everett”), a non-jurisdictional liquified natural gas import terminal.  In its third order, FERC accepted in part a Mystic compliance filing submitted in response to the December 2018 Order.  Commissioner Glick issued dissents to each of the July 17 orders.  Commissioner Glick concluded that FERC was forcing consumers to pay the full cost of service for Mystic in order to “bail out” Everett, and that each of the orders exceeded FERC’s jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act (“FPA”).

On July 16, 2020, FERC responded to a petition for declaratory order filed by a group of merchant generators (“Petitioners”) requesting that the Commission provide guidance and clarification on six areas of its cost-based reactive power ratemaking policy. While FERC declined to address five of Petitioners’ specific requests, explaining that it would address them in another ongoing reactive rate proceeding, FERC established paper hearing procedures on a single question: “what proxies, if any, may be used by merchant generators for reactive power service ratemaking purposes other than the use of the capital structure and the cost of capital of the interconnected utility.”

Executive Summary of FERC Order No. 872: Qualifying Facility Rates and Requirements Implementation Issues Under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 [1]

I. Overview

On July 16, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued Order No. 872, the Commission’s final order revising its regulations implementing Sections 201 and 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) [2]. This order, which follows a 2016 technical conference on PURPA issues and a September 2019 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) [3], is the first major set of revisions to FERC’s regulations implementing PURPA since they were established through Order No. 69 in 1980.

As FERC explained in the NOPR, the energy landscape has evolved in significant ways since the initial PURPA regulations were established, which includes increased supplies of natural gas, a more matured renewables industry, and the growing presence of non-Qualifying Facility (QF) independent power producers. These and other changes prompted FERC to revise its PURPA regulations, many of which are implemented by the states. These new changes provide additional guidance to state commissions regarding PURPA implementation and rests additional authority in state commissions regarding QF rates and contract terms.

On July 6, 2020, FERC moved for a ninety-day stay of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s (“D.C. Circuit’s”) mandate in Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC. That decision upset FERC’s long-used practice of granting itself more time to consider requests for rehearing of its orders by issuing tolling orders (see July 1, 2020 issue of the WER). Although the decision was issued in the context of a pipeline proceeding under the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”), FERC’s motion noted that the impact of the D.C. Circuit’s decision extends to all requests for rehearing under the NGA, and presumably to those under the Federal Power Act as well. In support of its motion, FERC explained that over the past fifty years, tolling orders have been a critical tool to help manage its large case load and bring its expertise to bear on complex technical matters before they are presented to the courts of appeals. FERC stated that a stay of the court’s mandate would afford it time to consider how to revise its processes and allocate its resources in the absence of tolling orders. FERC also argued that a stay would give it and the Solicitor General additional time to consider whether to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, though it noted that the ultimate decision of whether to petition the Supreme Court lies with the Solicitor General and the Department of Justice.