On January 22, 2018, a New York state trial court largely rejected motions to dismiss various challenges to the state’s zero emission credit (“ZEC”) program established in 2016 by the New York Public Service Commission (“NYPSC”).  The ZEC program, which is also being challenged in federal court, provides subsidies to financially struggling in-state nuclear energy generators.  Although the court allowed five of the six claims against the program to proceed to trial, the court dismissed 56 of the 61 petitioners for failing to timely raise their challenges.

On January 18, 2018, FERC took steps to develop supply chain risk management Reliability Standards and to approve several new Emergency Preparedness and Operations (“EOP”) Reliability Standards.  First, FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NOPR”) proposing to direct the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”) to develop supply chain risk management requirements under the Critical Infrastructure Protection (“CIP”) Reliability Standards.  Second, in a separate order, FERC approved several new EOP Reliability Standards aimed at addressing emergency event reporting, roles and responsibilities during system restoration via blackstart resources, system restoration plans and coordination, and the loss of control center functionality. 

On January 12, 2018, FERC rejected PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (“PJM”) proposal to revise its allocation of the costs associated with day-ahead Operating Reserves and real-time balancing Operating Reserves.  Specifically, PJM proposed to allocate uplift charges related to these reserves to Up-to-Congestion transactions (“UTCs”), a type of virtual transaction, in the same way that such uplift is allocated to other virtual transactions—namely, incremental offers of supply (“INC”) and decrement demand bids (“DEC”).  FERC rejected PJM’s proposal, without prejudice, on the grounds that PJM had failed to demonstrate that UTCs were sufficiently similar to INCs and DECs to justify allocating uplift to UTCs in the same manner that it allocates uplift to INCs and DECs.

On January 18, 2018, FERC approved California Independent System Operator Corporation’s (“CAISO”) changes to its resource adequacy program to, among other things, (1) allow capacity located in a local capacity area, but procured as system capacity, to provide system substitution capacity during forced outages and (2) cap a load serving entity’s (“LSE”) monthly local capacity requirement at its monthly system capacity requirement.

On January 12, 2018, FERC denied authorization to transfer a 1,159 MW coal-fired generation facility (“Pleasants Facility”) owned by Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (“AE Supply”) to its affiliate, Monongahela Power Company (“Mon Power”).  After considering the applicable tests for affiliate transfers under the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), FERC determined that the parties’ proposed transaction was not in the public interest because it presented potential concerns of captive ratepayers cross-subsidizing non-regulated entities and because certain solicitation criteria were not met.  The denial is without prejudice, so Mon Power and AE Supply may resubmit an application that corrects the shortcomings identified by FERC.

On January 8, 2018, FERC terminated the Department of Energy’s (“DOE”) Proposed Rule on Grid Reliability and Resilience Pricing (“Proposed Rule”) proceeding, and, instead, initiated a new proceeding whereby FERC plans to collect information on resilience from regional transmission organizations (“RTO”) and independent system operators (“ISO”).  Once that information is collected, FERC will determine whether further action is necessary to address grid resilience.  While FERC’s decision was unanimous, three of FERC’s Commissioners issued separate concurring opinions.  Of note, Commissioner Neil Chatterjee stated that while he would have preferred an order that took an interim step to address the issues raised in the Proposed Rule, he looked forward to addressing those critical issues in the new proceeding established by FERC.

On January 11, 2018, FERC denied Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC’s (“Constitution”) request asking FERC to conclude that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“New York DEC”) waived its authority to issue a water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”).  In so doing, FERC reiterated its authority to address such issues, as they relate to “setting and enforcing” Natural Gas Act (“NGA”)-imposed deadlines, and reaffirmed FERC’s long-standing position that state certifying agencies have up to one year to act on a CWA Section 401 application.

On January 8, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) ruled that FERC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving a 50 basis-point incentive adder to Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s (“PG&E”) return on equity (“ROE”) for its participation in the California Independent System Operator Corporation (“CAISO”).  In particular, the Ninth Circuit held that FERC did not follow its precedent by approving PG&E’s incentive adder while dismissing arguments that PG&E’s ongoing membership in CAISO was required by a California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) order and thus was not voluntary.

On January 9, 2018, several state Attorneys General, state agencies, and state consumer advocates (“State Advocates”) sent a joint letter to the FERC Commissioners requesting that FERC open an investigation into the continued justness and reasonableness of FERC-jurisdictional electric and natural gas utilities’ (“Public Utilities”) rates considering the recent reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate.  The State Advocates further urged FERC to promptly adjust the revenue requirements of such Public Utilities to prevent utility customers across the nation from overpaying for service. 

On December 28, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (“District Court”) held that Powhatan Energy Fund LLC, Dr. Houlian Chen, and two funds owned by Dr. Chen (collectively, “Respondents”) are entitled to a full civil trial in FERC’s action to enforce penalties against Respondents for allegedly manipulating electricity markets.  Notably, the District Court held that a plenary civil trial was required because Respondents elected to forego a formal hearing before a FERC Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).  In lieu of a hearing before a FERC ALJ, Respondents instead elected to have FERC assess penalties upon finding a violation occurred, based on the investigative record. Thus, according to the District Court, a proper administrative record was never developed and Respondents were never permitted an opportunity to conduct their own independent discovery.