On October 21, 2009, four former chairmen of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or the “Commission”) filed a brief as amici curiae at the United States Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”), arguing that a lower court’s interpretation of  the Commission’s backstop transmission siting authority was too narrow (see February 20, 2009 edition of WER). 

On October 23, 2009, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or the “Commission) approved an interim Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (“Midwest ISO”) Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff (“Tariff”) amendment to revise the method for allocating the cost of network upgrades for generation interconnection projects that meet the Midwest ISO’s regional expansion criteria and benefits standards (“RECB”).  The Tariff will now require that generators pay all interconnection costs to lines smaller than 345 kV and 90 percent of network upgrades for lines that are 345 kV or greater. 

On October 20, 2009, the General Counsel for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or the “Commission”) submitted comments to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) stating that FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over the transmission and sale of electricity in interstate commerce or with regulation of wholesale energy markets. 

On October 22, 2009, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (“PUCT” or “Texas Commission”) asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or the “Commission”) to dismiss an enforcement petition from six wind power developers, stating that the developers mischaracterized the PUCT’s decision not to allow the developers to sell output from their qualifying facilities (“QF”) at avoided cost rates.