On November 19, 2020, FERC issued Opinion No. 569-B, in which it made minor modifications to the discussion in, but largely reaffirmed, its previously-issued Opinion No. 569-A wherein FERC revised its return on equity (“ROE”) analysis and methodology. Specifically, FERC reaffirmed the three-model methodology it had established in Opinion 569-A, while clarifying that one of the models, the “Risk Premium Model”, would employ historical rather than forward-looking bond yields. FERC also updated the Risk Premium Model to both correct typographical errors and include an inadvertently omitted case.

On November 19, 2020, FERC upheld its March 2018 order addressing ISO New England, Inc.’s (“ISO-NE”) Competitive Auctions with Sponsored Policy Resources (“CASPR”) proposal to integrate certain state-supported resources into its capacity market (see March 20, 2018 edition of the WER). FERC’s November 19 order upheld its prior conclusion that the CASPR program is a just and reasonable modification to ISO-NE’s Forward Capacity Market (“FCM”) design that appropriately balances consumer as well as supplier interests. In a separate dissenting opinion, Commissioner Richard Glick concluded that the CASPR program has not shown to be an effective means of accommodating state public policies in the FCM.

On November 19, 2020, FERC issued Order No. 872-A, an order denying rehearing and clarifying portions of Order No. 872, which revised the regulations implementing the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”). In Order No. 872-A, FERC affirmed its previous PURPA regulation amendments in Order No. 872, but provided further explanation regarding six key reforms: (1) states’ use of tiered avoided cost pricing; (2) states’ use of variable energy rates in qualifying facility (“QF”) contracts and availability of utility avoided cost data; (3) the role of independent entities overseeing competitive solicitations that set avoided cost rates; (4) the circumstances under which a small power production QF needs to recertify; (5) the application of the rebuttable presumption of separate sites for the purpose of determining the power production capacity of small power production facilities; and (6) the PURPA section 210(m) rebuttable presumption of nondiscriminatory access to markets and accompanying regulatory text.

On November 12, 2020, FERC accepted two compliance filings submitted by PJM Interconnection, L.LC. (“PJM”) in which PJM proposed updates to its reserve market and forward-looking energy and ancillary services offset (“E&AS Offset”) used in PJM’s capacity market. Commissioner Glick filed a partial dissent, stating that, while he agreed with the implementation of the E&AS Offset, the order was otherwise implementing an unjust and unreasonable rate.

On October 30, FERC (under then-Chairman Neil Chatterjee) announced that it planned to convene a roundtable discussion (“Roundtable”) on the increased deployment of electric vehicles (“EVs”) and EV charging infrastructure nationwide, as well as their corresponding impact on the FERC-jurisdictional transmission system and wholesale electric markets (see November 10,…

On November 5, 2020, FERC approved Southern California Edison Company’s (“SoCal Edison”) request to utilize a May 2020 formula rate sales forecast rather than its April 2020 sales forecast, as required by Appendix IX of SoCal Edison’s Transmission Owner Tariff (“Tariff”). The updated sales forecast, which informs SoCal Edison’s wholesale and retail transmission rate-recovery and true-up calculations, reflects a decrease in sales revenues due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In a dissenting opinion, then-Commissioner James Danly opposed the waiver, citing previous criticisms that such FERC action violates the filed rate doctrine and the rule against retroactive ratemaking (see October 28, 2020 edition of the WER).

On November 3, 2020, FERC upheld its May 2020 order finding PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (“PJM”) reserve market design to be unjust and unreasonable, and establishing a replacement market design including, among other elements, a downward-sloping Operating Reserve Demand Cure (“ORDC”) and a $2,000/MWh price ceiling (see May 28, 2020 edition of the WER). FERC also upheld its prior finding that PJM should implement a new, forward looking energy and ancillary services offset (“E&AS Offset”). FERC’s November 3 order addressed rehearing requests filed by PJM’s Independent Market Monitor (“IMM”), the Maryland Public Service Commission, and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative and the PJM Load/Customer Coalition. Commissioner Richard Glick issued a separate dissenting statement in which he concluded that FERC failed to show that PJM’s existing reserve market design is unjust and unreasonable, and that FERC “rubber stamp[ed]” PJM’s proposed replacement ORDC. Commissioner Glick echoed his dissent in the May 2020 order, explaining that the downward-sloping ORDC will force customers to pay billons of dollars in scarcity pricing when no shortage exists and will produce a windfall for generators.

Importantly, the November 3 order was limited to addressing arguments raised on rehearing of the May 2020 order. PJM’s August 5, 2020 filing, proposing tariff revisions to implement a forward-looking E&AS offset in compliance with the May 2020 order (“August 2020 Compliance Filing”), remains pending before FERC. In the proceeding addressing PJM’s revisions to its Minimum Offer Price Rule (“MOPR Proceeding”), FERC recently stated that the revisions proposed in the August 2020 Compliance Filing will have an impact on the default offer price floors and E&AS Offsets that will be used in the Base Residual Auctions (“BRAs”) and Incremental Auctions for Delivery Year 2022-23 and going forward. FERC therefore stated in the MOPR Proceeding that PJM cannot conduct the BRA for the 2022-23 Delivery Year until FERC has issued an order on PJM’s August 2020 Compliance Filing (see October 22, 2020 edition of the WER).

On October 30, 2020, FERC rejected ISO New England Inc.’s (“ISO-NE”) proposed revisions to the ISO-NE tariff to resolve long-term fuel security concerns in the New England region. FERC found that ISO-NE’s proposed solutions would substantially increase consumer costs without meaningfully improving fuel security in the region, and offered guidance on how ISO-NE might develop a just and reasonable approach to address its fuel security concerns.

On October 30, 2020, FERC announced that the FERC Chairman will convene a roundtable discussion on December 3, 2020 regarding the increased deployment of electric vehicles (“EVs”) and EV charging infrastructure nationwide and their impact on the FERC-jurisdictional transmission system and wholesale electric markets. Separately, on November 4, 2020, FERC announced that FERC staff will convene a technical conference on February 25 and 26, 2021 to discuss principles and best practices for credit risk management in organized wholesale electric markets.

On October 28, 2020, FERC declined to abrogate or modify firm natural gas transportation service agreements (“Gulfport TSAs”) between Gulfport Energy Corporation (“Gulfport”) and Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (“Rockies Express”) in response to a Rockies Express petition anticipating a potential Gulfport bankruptcy filing. After an expedited paper hearing, FERC concluded that the public interest does not presently require any modification, and thus, that the Gulfport TSAs on file remain just and reasonable. In doing so, FERC found that Gulfport failed to provide the evidence needed under Mobile-Sierra for FERC to find that abrogation of the Gulfport TSAs would be in the public interest. FERC’s order also follows its recent determination that it shares concurrent jurisdiction with the Bankruptcy Court over abrogation or modification of gas transportation agreements (see July 1, 2020 edition of the WER).