Regulatory & Compliance / Power / Project Finance FERC Meeting Agenda Summary In this issue… • Electric Items • Miscellaneous • Gas Items • Hydro Items • Certificates 14 October 2015 Authors: Daniel A. Hagan, Jane E. Rueger Below are brief summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s October 15, 2015 meeting, pursuant to the agenda as issued on October 8, 2015. Agenda Items E-6, E-7 and E-10 have not been summarized as they were omitted from the agenda. Electric E-1 – Refinements to Policies and Procedures for Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities (Docket No. RM14-14-000): On June 19, 2014, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to streamline and simplify its market-based rate program for wholesale sales of electric energy, capacity and ancillary services. The proposed changes are intended to increase transparency and reduce the burden on industry and the Commission, while continuing to ensure that the standards for market-based rates result in sales that are just and reasonable. Numerous entities filed comments. Agenda item E-1 may be an order on the notice of proposed rulemaking. E-2 – AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Illinois Power Marketing Company (Docket Nos. EL13-76-001; EL13-76-002; EL13-76-003; ER15-368-001; ER15-346-001; ER14-2605-000; ER14-2605-001; ER13-1962-002; ER13-1962-003; ER13-1962-004; ER13-1963-003; ER13-1963-004; ER13-1963-005; ER14-1210-001; ER14-1210-002; ER14-1210-003; ER14-1210-004; ER14-1212-002; ER14-1212-003; ER14-1212-004; EL14-53-001; EL14-53-002; EL14-53-003; ER14-2619-001; ER14-2619-002; ER14-2718-001): On July 5, 2013, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company filed a complaint against Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), which was supplemented by Illinois Power Marketing Company (Illinois Power Marketing) and Illinois Power Resources Generating, LLC (Illinois Power Generating) on February 20, 2014 (February 20, 2014 Supplement). The Complaint concerns compensation under System Support Resource (SSR) agreements, pursuant to MISO’s Open Access Transmission, Energy, and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff (Tariff), specifically as it relates to compensation for the provision of SSR service under two unexecuted SSR Newsletter White & Case 2 agreements for the Edwards Unit No. 1 generating facility (Edwards Unit 1). On July 22, 2014, the Commission issued an order denying in part and granting in part the Complaint, as supplemented by Illinois Power’s February 20, 2014 Supplement, and requiring MISO to submit a compliance filing within 60 days. The Commission also established hearing and settlement judge procedures. The Commission’s July order also addressed the level of compensation and other issues related to the two unexecuted SSR agreements and associated rate schedules filed by MISO for SSR service provided by Edwards Unit 1, as well as instituted an FPA section 206 proceeding in Docket No. EL14-53-000 and established a refund effective date to require MISO to revise its Tariff to adequately describe the technical study process by which MISO is to evaluate whether potential SSRs are needed for reliability purposes. Numerous parties filed requests for rehearing of the Commission’s July order. Agenda item E-2 may be an order on the requests for rehearing and the numerous related SSR proceedings. E-3 – Public Service Company of New Mexico (Docket No. ER10-2302-005): On August 18, 2014, as amended on December 17, 2014, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) filed a notice of change in status to inform the Commission that PNM has acquired interests in Delta Person, Limited Partnership, the owner of a 132 MW gas-fired generating facility located in the PNM balancing authority area. PNM also requested to reestablish PNM’s market-based rate authority in the PNM balancing authority area. On December 19, 2014, the Commission issued a deficiency letter requesting additional information to process PNM’s filing. On February 18, 2015, PNM filed a response to the Commission’s February deficiency letter. Agenda Item E-3 may be an order on PNM’s notice of change in status and request for market-based rate authority. E-4 – Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER14-2850-001; ER14-2851-001): On September 11, 2014, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted proposed revisions to its Tariff, Bylaws and Membership Agreement (collectively, Governing Documents). SPP proposed revisions to its Governing Documents to facilitate the decision of the Western Area Power Administration – Upper Great Plains Region, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, and Heartland Consumers Power District (collectively, Integrated System Parties) to join SPP as transmission owning members, to place their respective transmission facilities under the functional control of SPP, and to begin taking transmission service under the SPP Tariff. On November 10, 2014, the Commission conditionally accepted in part, rejected in part, and accepted and suspended in part for a nominal period, to become effective as requested subject to refund, SPP’s proposed revisions to its Governing Documents, and established hearing and settlement judge procedures. In December 2014, numerous entities submitted requests for rehearing and clarification of the Commission’s November order. Agenda item E-4 may be an order on the requests for rehearing and clarification. E-5 – PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket Nos. ER13-535-002; ER13-535-003): On December 7, 2012, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) filed Open Access Transmission Tariff revisions pursuant to section 205 of the FPA to reform and update the minimum offer price rule for certain generation capacity resources seeking to participate in PJM’s capacity market auctions. On May 2, 2013, the Commission accepted PJM’s proposed Tariff changes subject to PJM revising those provisions in certain respects, through a compliance filing. On June 3, 2013, PJM made the requested compliance filing pursuant to the Commission’s May order. In June 2013, numerous entities requested rehearing of the Commission’s May 2013 order and protested PJM’s June 2013 compliance filing. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the requests for rehearing and PJM’s compliance filing. E-6 – Omitted E-7 – Omitted E-8 – Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. ER12-678-005): On June 30, 2014, the Commission granted a request for rehearing of the August 31, 2012 Order filed in Docket No. ER12-678-001 and conditionally accepted MISO’s compliance filings submitted in Docket Nos. ER12-678-002 and ER12-678-003, subject to a further compliance filing. In addition, pursuant to section 206 of the FPA, the Commission instituted an investigation as to the just and reasonable allocation of voltage or local reliability (VLR) costs to pseudo-tied load in Docket No. EL14-58-000. On July 30, 2014, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, and in compliance with the Commission’s June 30, 2014 Order, MISO submitted clean-up revisions to sections of its Tariff regarding VLR commitments. In August 2014, several entities filed motions to intervene and comments. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on MISO’s compliance filing. Newsletter White & Case 3 E-9 – Open Access and Priority Rights on Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection Facilities (Docket No. RM14-11-001): On March 19, 2015, the Commission issued Order No. 807, a final rule to remove regulatory inefficiencies and burdens by granting a blanket waiver from Tariff requirements to public utilities that would only be subject to those requirements because of their ownership, control, or operation of Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection Facilities. On April 20, 2015, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the American Public Power Association, and the Transmission Access Policy Study Group requested rehearing and clarification of Order 807. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the requests for rehearing and clarification. E-10 – Omitted E-11 – North American Electric Reliability Corporation (Docket No. RR15-4-001): On March 19, 2015, the Commission issued an order largely approving the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s (NERC) Risk-Based Registration (RBR) Initiative. The RBR Initiative assures that the right entities are subject to the right set of Reliability Standards, using a consistent approach to registration and risk assessment. On July 17, 2015, NERC submitted a compliance filing in accordance with the Commission’s March order. Agenda item E- 11 may be an order on NERC’s compliance filing. E-12 – Bloom Energy Corporation (Docket No. EL15-81-000): On June 30, 2015, Bloom Energy Corporation (Bloom) filed a petition for declaratory order seeking a ruling that Bloom and certain of its subsidiaries are exempt from Commission regulation under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 as a result of their generation and sales to non-captive customers of electric energy generated from fuel cells using natural gas or renewable energy biogas as a fuel. Agenda item E-12 may be an order on Bloom’s petition for declaratory order. E-13 – Southern Company Services, Inc., KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company, The Empire District Electric Company, and Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket Nos. EL15-66-000; EL15-77-000): On May 21, 2015, Southern Company Services, Inc., as agent for Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Southern Power Company, KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company, The Empire District Electric Company, and Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. (collectively, Complainants), filed a formal complaint against MISO alleging that: (1) MISO has levied unlawful charges upon Complainants in violation of section 205 of the FPA, and (2) MISO’s rates for transmission service are unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory and preferential, and in violation of established precedent under the FPA sections 205 and 206. On June 9, 2015, Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. (Morgan Stanley) filed a formal complaint against MISO, containing the same allegations. Numerous entities filed motions to intervene and comments in both complaint proceedings. Agenda item E-13 may be an order on the complaints. E-14 – Winding Creek Solar LLC (Docket Nos. EL15-52-001, QF13-403-003): Winding Creek Solar LLC (Winding Creek) filed with FERC a petition for enforcement under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) against the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Winding Creek alleged that CPUC’s feed-in tariff program for eligible renewable energy sources of 3 MW or less is inconsistent with PURPA since it imposes a 750 MW statewide cap on the obligation of utilities to provide qualifying facilities (QFs) with a long-term avoided cost rate. On May 8, 2015, FERC issued a notice of intent not to act and a declaratory order finding that the CPUC program was not inconsistent with PURPA as the feed-in tariff program is an alternative to California’s standard PURPA avoided cost rate program. Winding Creek filed a request for rehearing. Agenda item E-14 may be an order on the request for rehearing. E-15 – Delta-Montrose Electric Association (Docket No. EL15-43-001): On February 9, 2015, DeltaMontrose Electric Association filed a petition for a declaratory order, requesting the Commission find: (1) TriState Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State), which provides electric service to member cooperatives, including Delta-Montrose, is a public utility under the FPA, making Delta-Montrose’s wholesale requirements contract with Tri-State subject to the FPA sections 205 and 206; (2) Delta-Montrose’s obligation to purchase power from qualifying facilities under PURPA supersedes any conflicting provisions in DeltaMontrose’s requirements contract with Tri-State; and (3) Delta-Montrose can negotiate with a QF for a purchase price based on its own avoided cost and reduce the amount of energy it purchases from Tri-State. On June 18, 2015, the Commission found that Delta-Montrose is obligated to purchase power under section 292.303(a) of the Commission’s regulations, that such sales may be at negotiated rates, and that Tri-State is exempt from the requirements of FPA sections 205 and 206 through section 201(f) of the FPA. On August 19, Newsletter White & Case 4 2015, the Commission granted rehearing for further consideration of the June 18 Order. Agenda item E-15 may be an order on rehearing of the June 18 Order. E-16 – Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. ER14-2022-001): On May 22, 2014, MISO submitted a request for a one-time waiver of certain provisions of MISO’s Tariff and FERC regulations relating to Long-Term Firm Transmission Service Requests (TSR), including from: (1) Attachment Q of the Tariff, which requires compliance with NAESB’s “Business Practices for [OASIS] Standards & Communication Protocols”; (2) Sections 17.2, 17.6, 17.7 and 19 of the Tariff, which set forth timing and response requirements for MISO when evaluating a Long-Term Firm TSR; and (3) Attachment J to the Tariff, which sets forth time periods for the processing of TSRs. Agenda item E-16 may be an order on MISO’s waiver requests. E-17 – Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. ER15-943-002); Illinois Power Marketing Company (Docket No. ER15-948-001); Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. ER15-943-001 (consolidated), Docket No. ER15-946-001 (not consolidated)): On January 30, 2015, MISO filed in Docket No. ER15-943-000 an unexecuted System Support Resource (SSR) agreement between Illinois Power Marketing Company and MISO for Edwards Unit 1. On January 30, 2015, MISO submitted in Docket No. ER15-946-000 a proposed Rate Schedule 43C addressing allocation of the costs associated with the Edwards Year 3 SSR Agreement. On January 30, 2015, Illinois Power filed in Docket No. ER15-948-000 an unexecuted version of the Edwards Year 3 SSR Agreement setting forth its proposed Monthly SSR Payment and the pollution control costs component for 2015. On March 31, 2015, the Commission conditionally accepted and set for hearing the Edwards Year 3 SSR Agreement and the Illinois Power Restated 2015 SSR Agreement, and also accepted the Edwards Year 3 Rate Schedule 43C. Agenda item E-17 may be an order on rehearing of the March 31 Order. E-18 – R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (Docket No. ER15-1047-003): On February 13, 2015, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (Ginna) filed an executed Reliability Support Services Agreement (RSSA) between Ginna and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) to help ensure reliability in the Rochester, New York region. On April 14, 2015, the Commission issued an order accepting in part and rejecting in part the RSSA filing. On May 14, 2015, various parties, including Ginna, filed requests for rehearing or clarification of the April 14 Order and Ginna submitted in Docket No. ER15-1047-002 its compliance filing to the April 14 Order (RSSA Compliance Filing). On July 13, 2015, the Commission granted in part and denied in part requests for rehearing of the April 14 Order and accepted the RSSA Compliance Filing subject to the outcome of the ongoing hearing and settlement judge procedures. Requests for rehearing of the July 13 Order were filed as well. Agenda item E-18 may be an order on rehearing of the July 13 Order. E-19 – Entergy Services, Inc. (Docket No. ER15-1826-000): On May 29, 2015, Entergy Services, Inc. (ESI) submitted for filing the payments/receipts among the Entergy Operating Companies, pursuant to Service Schedule MSS-3 of the Entergy System Agreement (ESA), to implement the Commission’s decision in Opinion Nos. 480 and 480-A. The May 29 filing is the ninth annual filing implementing the bandwidth formula set forth in Service Schedule MSS-3 containing the 2015 Bandwidth Calculation. Agenda item E-19 may be an order on Entergy’s May 29 filing. E-20 – Louisiana Public Service Commission (Docket No. EL01-88-013): On April 29, 2014, ESI submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Order Rejecting Compliance Filing issued in Docket No. EL01-88-010 on February 28, 2014. The February 28 Order rejected Entergy’s previous Compliance Filing after determining that the use of six months of data as the basis for the calculation of the bandwidth payments and receipts for a seven-month period under the ESA was inappropriate. The Commission directed that a subsequent compliance filing use monthly data for the seven individual months, where possible, and that the bandwidth payments must also include interest associated with the seven-month period. Agenda item E-20 may be an order on Entergy’s April 29, 2014 compliance filing. E-21 and E-22 – Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy Services, Inc. (Docket Nos. EL01-88- 012, EL01-88-011): On March 31, 2014, ESI requested a rehearing of the Commission’s orders issued on February 28, 2014 in Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy Services, Inc., 146 FERC ¶ 61,152 (2014) and Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy Services, Inc., 146 FERC ¶ 61,153 (2014) with respect to the Commission’s requirement that Entergy include interest, beginning June 1, 2006, on the recalculated bandwidth payment and receipt amounts for the seven-month period from June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 under the ESA. Agenda items E-21 and E-22 may be an order on rehearing of the February 28, 2014 Order. Newsletter White & Case 5 E-23 – PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket Nos. ER14-2940-001, ER14-2940-002): On September 25, 2014, PJM submitted proposed changes to its Tariff to revise pricing elements used to clear its capacity market auctions, specifically changes to its capacity market demand curve, the Variable Resource Requirement VRR Curve, and VRR Curve cost inputs, including the cost of new entry (CONE) by a representative new power plant, and the energy and ancillary services revenues that such a plant would be expected to earn through its participation in the PJM markets. On November 28, 2014, the Commission conditionally accepted the revisions subject to a compliance filing. Requests for rehearing of the November 28 Order were filed. Agenda item E-23 may be an order on rehearing of the November 28, 2014 Order and/or on PJM’s compliance filing. E-24 – Fore River Development, LLC, Mystic I, LLC, Mystic Development, LLC, Boston Generating, LLC, Constellation Mystic Power, LLC (Docket No. EC10-85-002): On August 18, 2010, Fore River Development, LLC Mystic I, LLC Mystic Development, LLC, Boston Generating, LLC and Constellation Mystic Power, LLC, filed an application under section 203(a)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requesting Commission authorization to transfer to Constellation Holdings, Inc., five generating facilities and associated interconnection facilities. NSTAR Electric Company (NSTAR) protested, contesting Applicants’ assertion that their business transactions in the same geographic market are de minimis. On December 22, 2010, the Commission issued an order approving the transaction and rejected NSTAR’s protest regarding horizontal market power concerns. On January 21, 2011, NSTAR filed a rehearing request, seeking to require Constellation to initiate correction of the common mode failure (CMF) reliability condition. Agenda item E-24 may be an order on NSTAR’s request for rehearing. E-25 – Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Company (Docket No. EL12-53- 001): On March 30, 2012, Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Seminole) filed a complaint pursuant to section 206 of the FPA against Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), alleging that FPL violated provision of its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) regarding energy imbalance charges. On June 28, 2012, the Commission issued an order granting in part and denying in part Seminole’s complaint. On July 27, 2012, Seminole filed a request for rehearing of the June 28 order. Agenda item E-25 may be an order on the request for rehearing. E-26 – Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC v. PacifiCorp (Docket No. EL15-44-000): On February 11, 2015, Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC (Sage Grouse) filed a complaint under section 206 of the FPA against PacifiCorp, alleging PacifiCorp implemented a “scheme” of actions against Sage Grouse with respect to an Interconnection Request that PacifiCorp accepted from Blue Mountain Power Partners, LLC (BMPP). Specifically, Sage Grouse alleged that PacifiCorp deemed BMPP’s interconnection request complete without BMPP demonstrating that it had the requisite site control. Sage Grouse alleges PacifiCorp accepted the deficient interconnection request to reserve available capacity from BMPP and to deter Sage Grouse from submitting an interconnection request of its own. Subsequently, on April 2, 2015, Sage Grouse filed an answer and amended its original complaint. Several motions arising during the proceeding also remain unresolved, including PacifiCorp’s motion requesting release of confidential material. Agenda item E-26 may be an order on the complaint and/or the related motions. E-27 – Champion Energy Marketing LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and PJM Settlement, Inc. (Docket No. EL15-46-000): On February 13, 2015, Champion Energy Marketing LLC (Champion) filed a complaint pursuant to section 206 of the FPA against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., and its subsidiary, PJM Settlement, Inc. (collectively PJM), alleging the Balancing Operating Reserve (BOR) charges allocated to Champion for the month of January 2014 were unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory and/or preferential, and requested a one-time, Champion-specific waiver excusing it from complying with the relevant PJM OATT provisions and a refund in the amount of $2,708,236.96 for reliability charges and $421,888 for deviation charges. A number of entities filed interventions or comments, including from Verde Energy USA (Verde), who also requested a waiver for itself of the relevant BOR OATT provisions. PJM submitted an answer in opposition to Verde’s request for a waiver on April 14, 2015. In addition, on March 6, 2015, Exelon Corporation filed a protest against Champion’s waiver request, urging the Commission, if it grants the complaint, to provide relief on a “prospective basis only.” Agenda item E-27 may be an order on Champion’s complaint and request for a waiver and/or Verde’s request for a waiver. Newsletter White & Case 6 Miscellaneous M-1 – Coordination of the Scheduling Processes of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines and Public Utilities (Docket No. RM14-2-002): On April 24, 2015, the Commission issued Coordination of the Scheduling Processes of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines and Public Utilities, Order No. 809, revising Commission regulations relating to the scheduling of transportation service on interstate natural gas pipelines to better coordinate the scheduling practices of the wholesale natural gas and electric industries and to provide greater flexibility to all shippers on interstate natural gas pipelines. On May 28, 2015, the American Gas Association, the American Public Gas Association, and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (collectively, Associations), filed a request for clarification regarding interpretations of recall rights under existing capacity release contracts following the shift from a two-day to three day intraday nomination cycle. On July 31, 2015, the Commission issued an order granting clarification as to the manner in which pipelines should implement the standards. In addition, the order on clarification also requested comments regarding whether the Commission should embark on further proceedings to establish a default interpretation of capacity release contractual recall provisions. Comments were requested as to (1) which parties the default should apply to; (2) whether the same default should apply between the Intraday 2 Nomination Cycle and the Intraday 3; and (3) the Association’s proposal that “the releasing shipper should have the ability to recall capacity under a transaction’s existing provisions if it wishes to terminate the transaction, even if the releasing shipper and the replacement shipper are unable to reach agreement on a non-default recall transition.” The Natural Gas Supply Association and the American Gas Association each filed comments in response to the Commission’s request. Agenda item M-1 may be an order related to the comments received in response. Gas G-1 – Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines Coordination of the Scheduling Processes of Interstate Natural (Docket Nos. RM96-1-038, RM14-2-003): As discussed regarding agenda item M-1 above, the Commission issued Order No. 809 on April 16, 2015. In connection therewith, the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) submitted a report regarding errata to Version 2.0 of the NAESB Wholesale Gas Quadrant standards. According to the filing, the modifications were made to accommodate changes adopted by the Commission in Order 809, such as the 9:00 am central time start to the gas operating day and minor changes for consistency. Agenda item G-1 may be an order regarding the NAESB report. G-2 – Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Docket Nos. RP13-751-001, RP13-751-000): On March 29, 2013, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) submitted revised tariff records to revise its contracting for service and right of first refusal (ROFR) processes. On April 30, 2013, the Commission issued its order rejecting proposed revisions to Algonquin’s reservation charge crediting or curtailment, and directed it to either revise its tariff to “conform with Commission policy” or provide an explanation for why it should not be required to do so. On May 30, 2013, Algonquin filed a request for rehearing, arguing the Commission’s decision to require Algonquin to now justify its reservation charge crediting provisions that were previously approved is a significant change in Commission policy, the effect of which is to shift the burden to Algonquin to prove its tariff is not unjust and unreasonable. As such, Algonquin asserts the April 30 Order violates the NGA, and the Administrative Procedure Act, and is fundamentally unfair. Agenda item G-2 may be an order on the request for rehearing. G-3 – Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC (Docket Nos. RP15-23-000, RP15-23-003 & RP15-23-007): On October 1, 2014, Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC (Transwestern) submitted a rate case pursuant to section 4 of the NGA and in compliance with a 2011 settlement. Transwestern proposed an adjusted straight fixed variable (ASFV) rate design. On October 14, 2014, Indicated Shippers filed a protest and motion for summary disposition. The Commission issued its order on October 30, 2014, accepting and suspending the tariff records and setting the matter for hearing. On January 22, 2015, the Commission issued an order (with Commissioner Honorable voting present) on rehearing, granting Indicated Shippers request for rehearing and summarily rejecting Transwestern’s proposed ASFV rate design. On February 23, 2015, Transwestern filed a request for rehearing of the Commission’s January 22 Order on rehearing. Separately, in the hearing conducted pursuant to the October 30 Order, on June 1, 2015, Transwestern reached a settlement agreement between itself, Commission trial staff, and the intervenors. Following comments on the proposed settlement from several participants, the ALJ approved the settlement as uncontested and certified it for Commission approval on July 28, 2015. Agenda item G-3 may be an order on the request for rehearing of the January 22 Order and/or regarding the settlement agreement. Newsletter White & Case 7 G-4 – Rice Energy Marketing LLC (Docket No. RP15-1089-000): On June 29, 2015, Rice Energy Marketing LLC (Rice) submitted a petition for a declaratory order requesting the Commission to clarify that the exemption in Promotion of a More Efficient Capacity Release Market, Order No. 712, from the buy-sell prohibition applies to supply-side asset management (AMAs) on the same basis as delivery-side AMAs. Agenda item G-4 may be an order related to the petition for a declaratory order. G-5 – ANR Storage Company (Docket No. RP12-479-000): On March 6, 2012, ANR Storage Company (ANR Storage) submitted a petition for a declaratory order requesting authorization to charge market-based rates for natural gas storage services and related waivers of the Commission’s cost-based rates regulations. On November 5, 2012, the Commission issued an order designating the matter for hearing in order to develop a factual record on the issue of whether ANR Storage lacks significant market power to charge market-based rates. The ALJ issued its initial decision on January 29, 2014, finding that ANR Storage possesses market power and therefore cannot collect market-based rates. Several participants subsequently filed exceptions to the ALJ’s findings in the initial decision. Agenda item G-5 may be an order regarding ANR’s petition and/or the ALJ’s initial decision. G-6 – Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership (Docket Nos. RP15-138-000, RP15-138-001); ANR Pipeline Company (Docket Nos. RP15-139-000, RP15-139-001); ANR Pipeline Company (Docket Nos. RP13-743-000, RP13-743-001, RP13-743-002, RP13-743-003 (consolidated)); ANR Pipeline Company (Docket Nos. RP14-650-000, RP14-650-001, RP15-785-000 (not consolidated)): On March 28, 2013, ANR made its annual filing in Docket No. RP13-743 to recover Qualifying Transportation Costs pursuant to the Deferred Transportation Cost Adjustment (DTCA) provisions in its gas tariff. This included new costs associated with a Part 284 firm transportation service agreement with Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership (Great Lakes), which ANR asserted were recoverable under the DTCA cost tracker. On November 3, 2014, ANR and Great Lakes made subsequent filings to convert three individually certified Part 157 transportation and exchange agreements to Part 284 open-access service pursuant to 18 C.F.R. 157.217(a). ANR submitted an offer of settlement in the above-referenced dockets on April 20, 2015. DTE Gas submitted comments opposing the Settlement Agreement on May 11, 2015. Agenda item G-6 may be an order on ANR’s offer of settlement. Hydro H-1 – Commencement of Assessment of Annual Charges (Docket No. RM15-18-000): On May 14, 2015, FERC issued a NOPR to revise its regulations in order to commence assessing annual charges to hydropower licensees and exemptees two years from the effective date of the project license, exemption, or amendment authorizing new capacity. Under the current regulations, the annual charges start on the date that project construction starts. The National Hydropower Association and FFP New Hydro, LLC filed comments opposing the proposed change. Agenda item H-1 may be an order on the NOPR. H-2 – PK Ventures I Limited Partnership (Docket No. P-4093-037): On August 18, 2015, FERC issued an order approving the transfer of the license from PK Ventures I Limited Partnership (PK Ventures I) for the 600 kW, Bynum Hydropower Project in North Carolina. PK Ventures I submitted a request for clarification, or in the alternative rehearing, that the license for the Bynum Hydropower Project expired on May 1, 2015 and that therefore PK Ventures is not the licensee for the project. Agenda item H-2 may be an order on the request for clarification. H-3 – Eagle Crest Energy Company (Docket No. P-13123-003): On June 19, 2014, FERC issued an order granting Eagle Crest Energy Company an original license to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed 1,300 MW Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project in Riverside, California. The project will be located at the site of an inactive mine and would occupy both private lands and federal lands. The Desert Protection Society and the U.S. Department of the Interior have filed requests for rehearing. Agenda item H-3 may be an order on the requests for rehearing. H-4 – Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Docket No. P-2206-048): On April 1, 2015, FERC issued a new license to Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (f/k/a Carolina Power & Light) to continue the operation and maintenance of its 108.6 MW Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project in North Carolina. Duke Energy Progress, Inc. submitted a request for rehearing and clarification regarding certain conditions on the license. The City of Rockingham, North Carolina and American Rivers also submitted a joint request for rehearing. Agenda item H-4 may be an order on the requests for rehearing. Newsletter White & Case 8 Certificates C-1 – Roadrunner Gas Transmission, LLC (Docket No. CP15-161-000): On April 9, 2015, Roadrunner Gas Transmission, LLC (Roadrunner) filed a request for authorization under Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 3 and a Presidential Permit to site, construct, connect, operate and maintain certain natural gas pipeline facilities for the export of natural gas at a point on the international boundary line between the United States and Mexico in the vicinity of San Elizario in El Paso County, Texas. The project is intended to transport natural gas from Roadrunner’s upstream intrastate pipeline to a new delivery interconnect at the United States-Mexico border. An Environmental Assessment Report was completed. Agenda item C-1 may be an order on the request for authorization under NGA section 3 and a Presidential Permit. C-2 – Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, KO Transmission Company (Docket No. CP15-160-000): On April 7, 2015, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC and KO Transmission Company filed an abbreviated application under NGA section 7(c) to modernize certain of its infrastructure by replacing approximately 22 miles of high pressure bare steel pipe with coated pipe and installing additional appurtenant facilities with coated steel pipe in several counties in Kentucky. The project is intended to protect the pipelines from accelerated corrosion and enhance monitoring capabilities of natural gas to the Cincinnati, Ohio region. An Environmental Assessment Report was completed. Agenda item C-2 may be an order on the request for authorization under NGA section 7(c). C-3 – Regency Field Services LLC (Docket No. CP15-272-000): On April 27, 2015, Regency Field Services LLC filed an abbreviated application under NGA section 7(c) for certificates of public convenience and necessity and requests for certain waivers regarding the Coyanosa Residue Line or, in the alternative, a disclaimer of jurisdiction over the line. The project is approximately 8 miles of existing 20-inch diameter natural gas residue pipeline in Pecos County, Texas. Agenda item C-3 may be an order on the application. C-4 – Enable Gas Transmission, LLC (Docket No. CP14-503-001): On April 16, 2015, FERC issued an order authorizing Enable Gas Transmission, LLC (EGT), pursuant to NGA section 7(c) and EGT’s Part 157 blanket certificate, to install approximately 16.2 miles of 24-inch diameter pipeline and certain appurtenant facilities in Grady and McClain counties in Oklahoma. The Purcell family, whose property would be crossed by the pipeline, filed a request for rehearing and stay of the order. Agenda item C-4 may be an order on the request for rehearing and stay. White & Case LLP 701 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, District of Columbia 20005-3807 United States T +1 202 626 3600 In this publication, White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities. This publication is prepared for the general information of our clients and other interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.