On October 4, 2019, FERC rejected without prejudice a stated rate tariff and Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”), among other filings, by Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (“Tri-State”) and its subsidiary Thermal Cogen Partnership, L.P. (“Thermal Cogen”). Tri-State, an electric cooperative previously exempt from FERC’s jurisdiction, submitted the filings in an attempt to submit to FERC regulation after Tri-State admitted Mieco, Inc., a jurisdictional public utility, to its Board of Directors. FERC concluded that Tri-State’s stated rate tariff and OATT filings were patently deficient because they failed to provide the supporting data required for FERC to assess whether the proposed rates were just and reasonable, and for potentially interested parties to determine how the rates might affect them.

On September 30, 2019, FERC issued two orders denying requests for rehearing of orders that respectively granted Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) and Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”) 50-basis point return-on-equity adders for their continued participation in the California Independent System Operator Corporation (“CAISO”) (“RTO-Participation Incentive”). PG&E requested the RTO-Participation Incentive as part of its nineteenth transmission owner tariff filing; SCE requested the RTO-Participation Incentive as part of its 2018 transmission revenue requirement filing. FERC granted both requests in two separate orders issued in 2017. The California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) and Transmission Agency of Northern California requested rehearing of both 2017 orders; the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (“SMUD”) also requested rehearing of the 2017 order granting PG&E the RTO-Participation Incentive (CAISO, CPUC and SMUD are collectively referred to as the “California Parties”). FERC’s September 30, 2019 orders denying the California Parties’ rehearing requests concluded that is appropriate to grant both PG&E and SCE the RTO-Participation Incentive because California law does not mandate that either utility participate in CAISO.

On September 19, 2019, FERC concurrently issued two orders granting in part separate complaints filed by American Electric Power Service Corporation (“AEP”) and the City of Prescott, Arkansas (“Prescott”) finding that, to the extent loads pseudo-tied from Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) to Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (“SPP”) are subject to overlapping or duplicative congestion charges by both MISO and SPP, then such charges are unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential.  On the same day, FERC also established briefing procedures (“Briefing Order”) related to the complaint orders to further investigate issues concerning potentially unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory tariff provisions, contract provisions, and/or practices that result in overlapping and/or duplicative congestion charges being imposed on pseudo-tie transactions between MISO and SPP.

On September 19, 2019, FERC granted in part and denied in part a complaint by EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. (“EDF”) which alleged that the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”), Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (“SPP”), and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”) Open Access Transmission Tariffs (“Tariffs”), the MISO-SPP Joint Operating Agreement (“JOA”), and the MISO-PJM JOA are unjust and unreasonable because they lack sufficient detail and transparency regarding the process each Regional Transmission Organization (“RTO”) uses to coordinate with Affected Systems, i.e., other transmission systems that may be affected by a proposed generator interconnection.  FERC’s order comes after an April 2018 technical conference that explored the issues raised in EDF’s complaint as well as broader Affected Systems issues (see February 13, 2018 edition of the WER).  FERC’s September 19 order agreed that the lack of transparency in Affected System coordination creates cost uncertainty that presents a significant obstacle to the development of new generation resources, and required MISO, SPP, and PJM to memorialize their current Affected System study coordination processes in their Tariffs and JOAs.  FERC also required the RTOs to add to their Tariffs and JOAs clear references to further Affected System coordination details in business practices and other coordination documents.  However, FERC declined to initiate a generic proceeding on the Affected Systems coordination issues raised in the technical conference in regions beyond those identified in the complaint.

On July 18, 2019, FERC affirmed on remand its prior approval of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (“PG&E”) request for a return-on-equity (“ROE”) incentive adder to its transmission rates (“RTO-Participation Incentive”) for its ongoing membership in the California Independent System Operator Corporation (“CAISO”).  In its decision, which followed from a 2018 remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”), FERC reasserted its jurisdiction over such transmission incentive questions and determined that, absent a relevant mandate under California law requiring PG&E’s participation in CAISO, the RTO-Participation Incentive was warranted because it induces PG&E to continue its CAISO membership.

On June 24, 2019, FERC issued an order rejecting, without prejudice, Midcontinent Independent System Operator’s (“MISO”) and the MISO Transmission Owners’ (“MISO TOs”) proposal to allocate MISO’s share of the costs of certain interregional economic transmission projects with PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”) and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. within the MISO footprint (“Interregional Cost Allocation Proposal”).  FERC explained that it rejected the Interregional Cost Allocation Proposal because it referenced and relied on certain provisions contained within a related, regional cost allocation proposal that FERC rejected as inconsistent with cost causation principles in a concurrently-issued order (see July 18, 2019 edition of the WER ).  The June 24 order also rejected MISO’s submission of the Interregional Cost Allocation Proposal in a compliance filing in a separate complaint proceeding.  FERC directed MISO to submit a new compliance filing either to confirm that an existing cost allocation method will apply to interregional projects, or to propose a new cost allocation method for these projects.