On March 31, 2017, a group of California parties, consisting of various public power utilities and the California Public Utilities Commission (the “Complainants”), alleged in their complaint at FERC that Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (“PG&E”) proposed transmission rates in its eighteenth rate filing (“TO-18”) contained significant errors and overstated expenses.  The Complainants requested that FERC investigate the proposed TO-18 rates, which FERC had already set for hearing and settlement judge procedures in a separate proceeding. In addition, the Complainants requested that FERC exercise its authority to supplement the refund effective date established for the proposed TO-18 rates, in the event that the record eventually justified establishing a revenue requirement below PG&E’s last “clean” rate, established through settlement in its seventeenth rate filing (“TO-17”).

In an order issued on March 28, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (“District Court”) rejected arguments from FERC regarding the scope of review and applicable procedural rules governing the District Court’s review of a market manipulation enforcement proceeding.  Like every other federal court decision expressly addressing this issue—including one from a different judge in that same court earlier that month (see March 20, 2017 edition of the WER)—the District Court held that the defending parties were entitled to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”).

On March 28, 2017, Dynegy Marketing and Trade, LLC and Illinois Power Marketing Company (collectively, the “Complainants”) filed a complaint against the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) alleging that MISO has failed to comply with the terms of its Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff (“MISO Tariff”) with respect to resources “pseudo-tied” into PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”). According to the Complainants, MISO has been assessing congestion and losses charges to MISO resources pseudo-tied into PJM using “Financial Schedules” in a manner that “blatantly contravenes the MISO Tariff and that results in the unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory imposition of duplicative charges.” The Complainants request that the Commission order MISO to immediately cease and desist from imposing such charges and that MISO “refund duplicative congestion and losses charges unlawfully imposed.”

On March 28, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that, among other things, (1) directed the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) to rescind its guidance for federal departments and agencies on the consideration of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions in National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) reviews; (2) withdrew documents implementing the Social Cost of Carbon tool for regulatory impact analysis; and (3) directed the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to review and determine whether to withdraw or revise the Clean Power Plan, which several agencies were in the process of implementing (see January 29, 2016 edition of the WER).

On March 23, 2017, a group of environmental advocates including the Allegheny Defense Project, Clean Air Council, and Sierra Club (“Environmental Petitioners”) filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) to review a FERC order issuing a certificate for a pipeline proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company (“Order Issuing Certificate”), despite FERC Staff having issued an order granting rehearing for further consideration (“Tolling Order”)—a mechanism frequently used by FERC to allow it more time to act on a request for rehearing beyond the 30 days it is statutorily allowed.   

On March 24, 2017, the United States Department of State (“State Department”) issued a presidential permit to TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (“TransCanada”) authorizing TransCanada to import crude oil from Canada to the United States as part of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline project. The presidential permit was issued under the authority…

On March 24, 2017, the United States Department of State (“State Department”) issued a presidential permit to TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (“TransCanada”) authorizing TransCanada to import crude oil from Canada to the United States as part of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline project. The presidential permit was issued under the authority of Executive Order 13337 and the January 24, 2017 Presidential Memorandum Regarding Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline (see January 30, 2017 edition of the WER).

On March 15, 2017, the Board of Governors of the California Independent System Operator Corporation (“CAISO”) approved the 2016-2017 Transmission Plan, which is an annual, comprehensive assessment of transmission needs of the CAISO system over a 10-year planning horizon. According to the accompanying memorandum from CAISO Management, the Transmission Plan “provides a comprehensive evaluation of the ISO’s transmission grid to identify upgrades needed to successfully meet California’s policy goals, in addition to examining conventional grid reliability requirements and transmission projects that can bring economic benefits to consumers.”

On March 21, 2017, the Wyoming Pipeline Authority (“WPA”) withdrew its request for rehearing of the delegation order that FERC issued on February 3, 2017 (“Delegation Order”) in anticipation of the Commission’s loss of quorum following the departure of former Chairman Norman Bay.  The Delegation Order allows FERC staff to…

On March 22, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (“District Court”) dismissed a complaint by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network (“DRN”) alleging that its members had been deprived of constitutional due process because FERC is unable to make unbiased determinations on the issuance of natural gas pipeline certificates of public convenience and necessity (“CPCNs”). Specifically, DRN argued that because FERC’s funding mechanism requires FERC to recover its budget through a charge to regulated natural gas companies, it has a pro-industry bias.