Photo of Elizabeth McCormick

On November 8, 2019, Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Chairman of the House  Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Bobby L. Rush (D-IL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy (collectively the “Chairmen”), wrote a letter to FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee expressing their concerns regarding FERC’s proposed changes to sections 201 and 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (“PURPA”).
Continue Reading

On October 17, 2019, FERC denied requests for rehearing filed by the California State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) and conservation organizations in response to the Commission’s unanimous April 18, 2019 order finding that SWRCB had waived its authority under section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1641, to issue a water quality certification for the relicensing of Placer County Water Agency’s Middle Fork American River Hydroelectric Project (“Middle Fork Project”) (see April 24, 2019 edition of the WER).
Continue Reading

On October 17, 2019, FERC amended its Policy Statement on Consultation with Indian Tribes in Commission Proceedings (“Policy Statement”) by adding a specific reference to treaty rights, noting that the Commission addresses input from tribes in its National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) documents, and adding consultation with Alaska Native Corporations to the Policy Statement.
Continue Reading

On August 29, 2019, FERC issued a final rule revising 18 C.F.R. § 385.2001(a) and requiring that all physical filings and submissions to be delivered to FERC, other than those sent via the U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) are to be sent to FERC’s off-site security screening facility in Rockville, Maryland (see September 17 edition of the WER).  The rule was scheduled to go into effect on November 4, 2019, 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.
Continue Reading

On October 17, 2019, pursuant to the America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018, FERC issued a guidance document for applicants seeking preliminary permits or licenses for closed-loop pumped storage projects at abandoned mine sites.  It also issued a list of 230 existing nonpowered federal dams that FERC—along with the Secretaries of the Interior, Army, and Agriculture (collectively, the Secretaries)—determined have the greatest potential for nonfederal hydropower development.
Continue Reading

On November 5, 2019, the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources (“Committee”) held a hearing to consider the nomination of James Danly as a FERC Commissioner. Mr. Danly, currently FERC’s general counsel, was nominated to fill the vacancy on the Commission left by the passing of FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre in January of this year.

Continue Reading

On October 28, 2019, the Attorneys General of California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island (collectively “State AGs”) wrote to FERC to discuss opportunities for the State AGs and FERC to work cooperatively to promote state-level clean energy policies that benefit consumers and enhance grid reliability. The State AGs expressed an “urgent need” for further action to address climate change’s “massive” environmental, health, and economic harms in their states, and noted that the Commission’s actions related to market design, natural gas siting, and grid reliability significantly impact each state’s ability to achieve their clean energy goals.

Continue Reading

On October 23, 2019, FERC issued twin orders denying rehearing of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”) Phase 1 and Phase 2 Revisions, which sought to resolve overlapping congestion charges on pseudo-tied generation in Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) and PJM. American Municipal Power (“AMP”) requested rehearing, arguing that FERC engaged in impermissible piecemeal ratemaking, failed to evaluate the ultimate end result of the revisions, and did not fully address overlapping congestion charges. FERC rejected AMP’s arguments, confirming that it fully considered the proposed revisions and found them just and reasonable.
Continue Reading

On October 17, 2019, FERC denied a complaint filed in June 2019 by Nevada Hydro Company, Inc. (“Nevada Hydro”) alleging that the California Independent System Operator Corporation (“CAISO”) failed to follow its Tariff requirements in studying the Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project (“LEAPS”) as a transmission facility in CAISO’s 2018-2019 transmission planning process. FERC concluded that Nevada Hydro failed to demonstrate that CAISO violated its Tariff in studying LEAPS as a proposed reliability-driven transmission solution and as a proposed economic transmission project. Rather, FERC accepted CAISO’s conclusion that it could identify no reliability need for LEAPS, and that the project’s economic benefits are far outweighed by its costs. FERC’s October 17 order also explained that it found no evidence that CAISO’s treatment of LEAPS was biased by a predetermined conclusion that LEAPS is a generation asset or that storage cannot qualify as transmission. FERC went on to note that a project’s ability to provide transmission benefits does not equate to a transmission need, nor does it guarantee eligibility to recover costs through transmission rates.
Continue Reading

On September 30, 2019, FERC accepted in part and rejected in part, the California Independent System Operator’s (“CAISO”) July 2, 2019 proposed revisions (“July 2 Filing”)  to its open access transmission tariff (“Tariff”) to include three unrelated mitigation measures designed to facilitate the participation of fast-ramping hydroelectric resources in the western energy imbalance market (“EIM”). FERC accepted two aspects of CAISO’s proposal related to the mitigation timing (the “Mitigation Timing” proposal and a hydro default energy bid (“DEB”) proposal, referred to as the “Hydro DEB” proposal), but rejected CAISO’s proposal to allow an EIM entity balancing authority area (“BAA”) in the real-time market to limit dispatch of incremental net exports under certain conditions (the “Net Export Limit” proposal).
Continue Reading