On May 21, 2020, FERC issued three orders denying, or denying in part, complaints against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”), finding that the complainants failed to demonstrate that PJM’s pseudo-tie rules are unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or that such rules had been applied in a manner inconsistent with the PJM Tariff. With respect to PJM’s market-to-market flowgate test and its electrical distance requirement, however, FERC granted the complaints in part, finding that PJM’s Tariff fails to provide an open and transparent process regarding PJM’s administration of those requirements.

On May 21, 2020, FERC reversed, on rehearing, an earlier determination from October 2017 that the Commission has the authority to require the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) to revise its Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff (“Tariff”) to include refund commitments by non-public utility transmission owning members. FERC found that although it has authority to review non-public utility rates included in jurisdictional rates (such as MISO’s), it was neither necessary nor appropriate to impose the refund commitment contemplated on non-public transmission owners in MISO. FERC also dismissed, as moot, MISO’s compliance filing submitted in response to the October 2017 Order, and terminated various related proceedings.

On May 1, 2020, FERC accepted two agreements—an unexecuted Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement (“NITSA”) and a Network Operating Agreement (“NOA”) (together, “Agreements”)—filed by Southwest Power Pool Inc. (“SPP”) to be effective February 1, 2020, subject to the outcome of pending rehearing proceedings. Consistent with FERC’s prior notice policies, SPP had requested waiver of the 60-day prior notice requirement to permit the Agreements to become effective February 1, 2020. While Commissioner Danly concurred with the decision to grant an effective date prior to the filing date, he noted that this practice appears to run afoul of the rule against retroactive ratemaking and urged FERC to reexamine its practice.

On April 30, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (“Eighth Circuit”) denied Nebraska Public Power District’s (“NPPD”) petition for review of FERC’s approval of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc.’s (“SPP”) placement of Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association’s (“Tri-State”) transmission facilities in SPP Zone 17. NPPD challenged FERC’s approval on cost causation grounds, arguing that FERC’s ruling was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to find that the benefits accruing to NPPD are roughly commensurate with the costs. The Eighth Circuit denied NPPD’s petition, concluding that FERC provided plausible and articulable reasons for why the costs and benefits of placing Tri-State’s transmission facilities in Zone 17 were comparable, and that FERC’s cost-causation analysis was not arbitrary and capricious.

On March 25, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (“Eighth Circuit”) upheld a Minnesota law granting a right of first refusal (“ROFR”) to incumbent electric transmission owners to construct, own, and maintain electric transmission lines connecting to their existing facilities. In its complaint brought before the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (“District Court”), LSP Transmission Holdings, LLC (“LSP”) argued that Minnesota’s ROFR statute discriminates against out-of-state transmission developers and places an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The Eight Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of LSP’s complaint finding, de novo, that Minnesota’s ROFR provision does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause.