On May 22, 2018, GlidePath Power Solutions LLC (“GlidePath”) filed a complaint with FERC under sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act alleging that PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”) improperly rejected GlidePath’s interconnection request for a proposed battery storage facility (the “Project”).  GlidePath alleged that PJM relied on an impermissible interpretation of its generator interconnection rules, which require demonstration of site control, to unjustly deny interconnection service for the Project, resulting in cancellation of the Project’s interconnection request.  In its complaint, GlidePath requested that FERC find that PJM unjustly, unreasonably, and incorrectly applied its rules regarding site control, and that PJM must restore the queue position held by the Project. 

On May 17, 2018, FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NOPR”) in which it proposed to approve Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 (Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events) submitted by the North American Electric Corporation (“NERC”).  Geomagnetic disturbance (“GMD”) events result from charged particles ejected from the sun that interact with and cause changes in the earth’s magnetic fields, impacting flows on electric power systems and potentially causing voltage instability and equipment failure.

On May 18, 2018, FERC denied rehearing of its April 28, 2016 order (the “April 28 Order”) approving Dominion Transmission, Inc.’s (“Dominion”) New Market Project.  Notably, FERC held that it is not required to analyze the upstream and downstream impacts of a proposed pipeline project unless those impacts are considered cumulative or indirect effects within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).  Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur and Richard Glick dissented in part, instead finding that FERC is required to provide the public with information relating to the upstream and downstream impacts of a proposed project and stating that FERC should ask applicants to provide such information.

On May 17, 2018, FERC issued Order No. 833-A wherein it denied rehearing of Order No. 833 and granted, in part, Edison Electric Institute’s (“EEI”) request for clarification of Order No. 833.  Order No. 833 amended FERC’s regulations regarding Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (“CEII”), as directed by the FAST Act.  The FAST Act, signed into law on December 4, 2015, added section 215A to the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) to improve the security and resilience of energy infrastructure in the face of emergencies.  The FAST Act also directed FERC to issue regulations on the procedures for designating certain material as CEII, provided for the imposition of sanctions on any party who knowingly discloses CEII, and authorized the voluntary sharing of CEII material.

On May 17, 2018, FERC affirmed an Initial Decision addressing a bandwidth calculation filing applicable to a seven-month period in 2005 filed by Entergy Services, Inc. on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies (“Operating Companies”; collectively, “Entergy”) in November 2016. 

On May 17, 2018, FERC issued two orders denying requests for rehearing of two orders rejecting certain Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (“SPP”) Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”) proposals that, as FERC found, provided Auction Revenue Rights (“ARRs”) and Long-term Congestion Rights (“LTCRs”) on an unjust and unreasonable basis (“May 2018 Orders”).  FERC’s previous orders, both issued on October 19, 2017 (“October 2017 Orders”), found that SPP was impermissibly providing ARRs and LTCRs for network service subject to “redispatch” (or, curtailment), on the same basis as network service not subject to redispatch (see October 25, 2017 edition of the WER).  In these latest orders, FERC rejected claims that, among other things, the October 2017 Orders had violated the contract rights of eligible network customers and that they constituted unlawful retroactive agency action.

On March 17, 2018, FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NOPR”) proposing to eliminate the Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report, designated as FERC Form No. 80 (“Form 80”), which collects information on the use and development of recreational facilities at licensed hydropower projects.  In addition, FERC proposed in the NOPR to revise related regulations in order “to modernize public notice practices, clarify recreational signage requirements, and provide flexibility to assist licensees’ compliance efforts.” 

On May 4, 2018, FERC issued an order approving a proposal by the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (“SPP”) to eliminate transmission revenue credits for certain non-capacity network upgrades and to exempt non-firm and short-term firm point-to-point transmission service requests from incurring payment obligations for otherwise creditable system upgrades.  Recognizing the flexibility afforded to Regional Transmission Organizations (“RTOs”) and Independent System Operators (“ISOs”) in the assignment of network upgrade costs, FERC rejected protests that SPP was not sufficiently recognizing the benefits of non-capacity upgrades.

On May 8, 2018, FERC rejected PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (“PJM”) proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (“Tariff”) and Reliability Assurance Agreement Among Load Serving Entities in the PJM Region.  PJM stated that these revisions would reform its Incremental Auctions and its method for addressing excess capacity in the PJM region (“Incremental Auction Proposal”).  PJM specified that its current market rules do not protect against, and may in fact provide an incentive to engage in, speculative behavior, which distort price signals on the value of capacity.  FERC rejected PJM’s Incremental Auction Proposal because, according to FERC, PJM did not support its argument that speculative behavior is actually transpiring, and PJM already had procedures in place to address this activity if it is actually occurring.

On May 4, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”) dismissed a private suit filed by a group of investors (“Plaintiffs”) seeking damages for Total Gas & Power North America, Inc., Total S.A., and Total Gas & Power Limited (collectively, “Total”) for allegedly manipulating natural gas markets at four western trading hubs.  In doing so, the Second Circuit held that Plaintiffs – who did not trade at the four western trading hubs at which Total traded, but argued that Total’s trading impacted Plaintiffs’ trading at the Henry Hub – established constitutional standing but failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a plausible substantive cause of action.