On February 28, 2013, FERC accepted and suspended Potomac Electric Power Company and Delmarva Power & Light Company’s (collectively, “PHI Companies”) tariff revisions to recover costs related to abandonment of the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (“MAPP”) Project.  The Commission, however, required the removal of previously-awarded return on equity (“ROE”) incentive adders for regional transmission organization (“RTO”) participation and for the risks and challenges of the project.  FERC concluded that due to the abandonment of the MAPP Project, the adders were no longer appropriate.  FERC set the issue of the reasonableness of the specific amount of abandonment costs for hearing.

On March 5, 2013, FERC announced the details of its upcoming technical conference focused on the scheduling practices of natural gas and electric markets.  The technical conference is the second of two technical conferences ordered by FERC in a November 15, 2012 order to address common issues raised during regional conferences (see November 16, 2012 edition of the WER).  The first technical conference was held on February 13, 2013, and addressed communication issues between the two industries (see February 14, 2012 edition of the WER).

On Thursday, February 28, 2013, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”) filed proposed revisions to its Standard Processes Manual (“SPM”) with FERC.  The SPM contains the procedures that govern NERC’s development of mandatory reliability standards.  NERC explained that the purpose of updating the SPM is to streamline the drafting, commenting and balloting processes used to develop mandatory reliability standards, and to provide greater clarity throughout the entire process.

On February 15, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) issued an order upholding FERC’s determination that the rates stemming from an ISO New England, Inc. (“ISO-NE”) Forward Capacity Market are not contractual, although challenges to the forward capacity market rates are subject to the same Mobile-Sierra public interest (as opposed to the just and reasonable) standard as contracted rates.  This case is significant because the D.C. Circuit upheld the use of a legal standard normally applied in contractual situations to rates produced by tariff provisions. 

On February 21, 2013, FERC issued the first two orders concerning Order No. 1000 Compliance Filings.  In its first order, FERC rejected compliance filings by Duke Energy Carolinas LLC and Carolina Power and Light Company, d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas (“Duke-Progress”) and Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (“Yadkin”) for failing to form a compliant transmission planning region.  In its second order, FERC granted Maine Public Service Company (“MPS”) waiver of the regional transmission planning and cost allocation requirements of Order No. 1000 and conditionally accepted additional Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”) changes MPS submitted regarding its local transmission planning process, subject to further compliance.

On February 21, 2013, FERC issued a final rule incorporating updated business practice standards of the North American Energy Standards Board (“NAESB”) regarding the measurement and verification of demand response and energy efficiency.  The final rule revises FERC’s regulations (18 C.F.R. § 38.2) by referencing NAESB’s Phase II Demand Response Measurement and Verification, and its Wholesale Energy Efficiency Measurement and Verification standards.  These standards only apply to wholesale markets administered by regional transmission organizations (“RTOs”) and independent system operators (“ISOs”).

On January 31, 2013, FERC addressed PJM Interconnection L.L.C.’s (“PJM”) proposed cost allocation methods for transmission system expansion and enhancements approved during development of Regional Transmission Expansion Plan. FERC deferred a decision on PJM’s proposed cost allocation methods until the Commission conducts a “comprehensive evaluation” of PJM’s related Order No. 1000 compliance proposal. Accordingly, FERC will address the merits of the cost allocation filing in the future order on PJM’s Order No. 1000 compliance.