Troutman Pepper Locke

Subscribe to Troutman Pepper Locke's Posts

On April 21, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) denied a complaint from Monitoring Analytics, LLC, the independent market monitor (“Market Monitor”) for PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”), alleging that PJM’s existing capacity market rules fail to treat demand response resources in a manner comparable to generation capacity resources. Specifically, the Market Monitor asserted that demand response resources should be subject to: (i) a must-offer requirement, as applicable to PJM’s day-ahead energy market; and (ii) an offer cap on all energy offers, as applicable to generation resources.

On April 18, 2016, FERC largely accepted PJM Interconnection L.L.C. (“PJM”) and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.’s (“MISO”) proposal to implement “Coordinated Transaction Scheduling” (“CTS”) between the two Regional Transmission Organizations (“RTOs”). According to the proposal, CTS would allow market participants in both PJM and MISO to schedule coordinated buy-sell transactions across the MISO-PJM interface.

On April 11, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an opinion denying motions filed by Lincoln Paper and Tissue Company (“Lincoln”), Competitive Energy Services, LLC (“CES”) and Richard Silkman (“Mr. Silkman”) seeking dismissal of two federal proceedings commenced by FERC to affirm civil penalties. FERC imposed the penalties on the three respondents for allegedly manipulating ISO-New England Inc.’s (“ISO-NE”) Day-Ahead Load Response Program (“DALRP”). The court held that: (1) FERC’s enforcement actions were not barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) FERC clearly had jurisdiction over demand-response programs such as DALRP given the Supreme Court’s recent opinion so holding; (3) respondents received fair notice that their conduct was proscribed by Federal Power Act (“FPA”) Section 222 and FERC’s Anti-Manipulation Rule; (4) FERC plead its claims alleging fraud with the sufficient particularity required by F.R.C.P. 9(b); (5) respondents would not be liable were they mere “aiders and abbetters,” but FERC alleges they were primary violators themselves, who directly gave fraudulent information to ISO-NE; and (6) a natural person, such as Mr. Silkman, may be an “entity” subject to FPA Section 222 and FERC’s Anti-Manipulation Rule and the penalties imposed thereunder. With respect to this last holding, the court becomes the second federal court to hold that a natural person can be an “entity” under FERC’s Anti-Manipulation Rule and be personally liable for penalties imposed by FERC.

On April 8, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), on voluntary remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“DC Circuit”), reaffirmed its approval of an exemption of up to 200 MW of renewable resources from ISO New England Inc’s (“ISO-NE”) minimum offer pricing rule (“MOPR”) in ISO-NE’s Forward Capacity Market (“FCM”). Barring further legal challenges, the renewables exemption will remain effective as of June 1, 2014.

On April 12, 2016, FERC conditionally accepted ISO New England Inc.’s (“ISO-NE”) proposed revisions to its Transmission, Markets, and Services Tariff (“Tariff”) relating to new pricing and market power rules for the retirement of existing resources. Specifically, the conditionally-accepted revisions are intended to (i) create a means for capacity suppliers in ISO-NE’s Forward Capacity Market (“FCM”) to price the potential retirement of existing resources, and (ii) incorporate new market rules designed to mitigate the potential exercise of market power associated with the retirement of existing resources.

On April 11, 2016, FERC issued a certificate order authorizing Northwest Pipeline, LLC (“Northwest”), a Williams pipeline company, to construct a lateral to connect Northwest’s system to a proposed methanol plant that will be owned by Northwest Innovation Works (“NWIW”) in Cowlitz County, Washington. The April 11 Order, however, rejects the rates proposed for transportation service on the lateral. The Order finds that the proposed maximum recourse rates were derived using a “day-one rate base” for the return calculation, which practice FERC has previously prohibited, requiring, instead, the use of a first-year average rate base. The April 11 Order also rejects Northwest’s proposed allocation of its existing A&G costs to the incremental rates for service on the proposed lateral. The Commission holds that it “does not reallocate costs underlying existing rates in a proceeding under section 7 of the NGA,” and that Northwest must wait for its next general section 4 rate case to seek such reallocation of existing costs. The Order also holds that the proposed incremental interruptible transportation rate for the lateral was improperly designed.

On April 11, 2016, FERC initiated a new proceeding requesting comments regarding organized market rules for electric storage resources. FERC simultaneously issued letters to each of the six RTOs/ISOs (Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., New York Independent System Operator, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., ISO New England, Inc., and California Independent System Operator Corporation) seeking information from each regarding potential barriers that would prevent electric storage resources from participating in capacity, energy, and ancillary service markets within each RTO/ISO.

On April 4, 2016, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan signed into law Senate Bill 323 (“SB 323”), the Reauthorization of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act, which requires Maryland to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 2006 levels by 2030. Going forward, Maryland’s Department of the Environment (“MDE”) is directed to propose an initial plan to meet the reduction goals, hold workshops to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment, and then adopt a final plan by the end of 2019.

On April 6, 2016, Idaho Power announced that it has formally signed an agreement with California Independent System Operator (“CAISO”) to join the western Energy Imbalance Market (“EIM”) beginning in April, 2018.

On April 8, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (“Seventh Circuit”) denied petitions for review from the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) and the MISO transmission owners (“TOs”) regarding FERC’s Order No. 1000 requirement that transmission providers remove from their tariffs and agreements provisions granting incumbent transmission owners a right of first refusal (“ROFR”) to construct transmission facilities selected in a regional transmission plan. In addition, the Seventh Circuit also upheld FERC’s classification of baseline reliability projects as local projects.