On January 17, 2019, FERC denied requests for rehearing of its prior order to revoke Boyce Hydro Power, LLC’s (“Boyce Hydro”) license for its 4.8 MW Edenville Project No. 10808 (“Edenville Project”), which consists of a 6,600-foot-long dam in Michigan.  Boyce Hydro and the Sanford Lake Preservation Association (“Sanford Lake”) (together, the “Petitioners”) raised several claims in their requests for rehearing, including that FERC discounted the efforts Boyce Hydro took to remedy safety issues at the dam. 

On January 18, 2019, FERC accepted PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (“PJM”) proposed revisions to both PJM’s Amended and Restated Operating Agreement and Open Access Transmission Tariff (“Tariff”) designed to allow PJM to stop using certain resources to calculate the frequency regulation (“regulation”) market clearing price and reduce spikes in the clearing price in PJM’s regulation market.  FERC found the proposal to be a narrowly-tailored solution to the price spike problem, while noting that broader issues raised in protests regarding PJM’s proposal were beyond the scope of the proceeding and are currently pending before the Commission in other dockets regarding PJM’s regulation market design.

On January 23 and 24, 2019, the Department of Energy (“DOE”) announced $78 million in federal funding to improve existing coal-fired power plants and for grid modernization.  Both funding programs come from DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy.

On January 16, 2019, FERC launched investigations and initiated hearings pursuant to Natural Gas Act (“NGA”) section 5 into three natural gas pipeline companies in response to their Form No. 501-G filings to explore whether they have been over-recovering their costs of service.  Separately, FERC also found that nine other gas companies sufficiently complied with FERC’s directives in Order No. 849 and terminated their Form No. 501-G proceedings without taking any further action.

On January 17, 2019, FERC denied North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation’s (“NCEMC”) Formal Challenge and Complaint against Duke Energy Progress, LLC’s (“DEP”) transmission formula rate and Joint Open Access Transmission Tariff (“Joint OATT”) for failing to reflect in its wholesale transmission rates reductions related to federal, and North Carolina state, corporate income tax changes.  For various reasons discussed below, FERC denied NCEMC’s Complaint because it found that DEP had correctly applied its historical test year formula rate methodology.

On January 15, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) in San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. FERC, No. 16-1433, denied San Diego Gas & Electric’s (“SDG&E”) petition for review of FERC orders declining retroactive application of its cancelled or abandoned electric transmission facilities incentive (“Abandonment Incentive”).  The D.C. Circuit’s decision denies SDG&E the eligibility to recover, in the case of abandonment, approximately $15 million in development costs associated with its South Orange County Reliability Enhancement Project (“SOCRE Project”).  The decision also prompted a dissent from Senior Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, who argued that the underlying FERC orders were contrary to the plain language of the regulation at issue, as well as the Commission’s own precedent.

On January 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) denied a petition by the State of North Carolina to review two FERC orders involving the relicensing of the Yadkin River Hydroelectric Project (“Yadkin Project”) in North Carolina.  The D.C. Circuit found substantial evidence supporting FERC’s decision to deny North Carolina’s allegations of misrepresentation by Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (“Alcoa”), the license applicant, and to grant a new operating license to Alcoa for the Yadkin Project.  The court also rejected North Carolina’s proposal to invoke the federal recapture provision of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) to the state at Alcoa’s net investment plus severance damages.

On January 8, 2019, FERC approved revisions to the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”) Tariff and Operating Agreement regarding the use of transmission constraint penalty factors in its market operations.  PJM’s filing responds to new market transparency requirements set out in Order No. 844, the result of FERC’s rulemaking addressing uplift cost allocation and transparency in Regional Transmission Organizations (“RTOs”) and Independent System Operators (“ISOs”).  In accepting PJM’s proposed revisions, FERC found the revisions would provide transparency regarding PJM’s transmission constraint penalty factor procedures and also produce more transparent and appropriate pricing and investment signals that correspond to an underlying transmission constraint.

On January 4, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine (“Maine District Court”) issued an order on two motions for summary judgment concluding that FERC’s assessment of a civil penalty against Competitive Energy Services, LLC (“CES”) and its managing member, Richard Silkman (collectively, “Respondents”) was not time-barred by the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2462.  In doing so, the Maine District Court denied the Respondents’ motion for summary judgment. 

On January 7, 2019, FERC Commissioner Bernard McNamee signaled in a letter to members of the United States Senate (“January 7 Letter”) that he would not recuse himself from FERC’s pending grid resiliency proceeding in Docket No. AD18-7 unless the FERC proceeding began to “closely resemble” a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NOPR”) issued in September 2018 by the Department of Energy (“DOE”).  Commissioner McNamee helped draft the DOE NOPR, which also addressed grid resiliency issues and was rejected by FERC in Docket No. RM18-1 in January 2018 (see January 17, 2018 edition of the WER), when he was an attorney at the DOE.  The January 7 Letter responded to a December 12, 2018 request from a group of Senators, led by Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), that Commissioner McNamee provide an update on the guidance he received from FERC ethics officials regarding his recusal from specific proceedings.  According to that guidance, notwithstanding the similarities between Docket No. AD18-7 and the now-terminated Docket No. RM18-1 on the DOE NOPR, previous statements by Commissioner McNamee did not meet the legal standard for recusal, although the guidance urged “continued oversight to ensure that Docket No. AD18-7 does not develop in such a way as to replicate or closely resemble Docket No. RM18-1.”