Below are brief summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s May 20, 2010 meeting, pursuant to the agenda as issued on May 13, 2010. Agenda items E-2, E-3, E-4 and E-5 are not summarized as they were omitted from the May 13 agenda.
A-1: (Docket No. AD02-1-000) This administrative item will address Agency Administrative Matters.
A-2: (Docket No. AD02-7-000) This administrative item will address Customer Matters, Reliability, Security, and Market Operations.
A-3: (Docket No. AD06-3-000) This administrative item will address the 2010 Summer Assessment.
E-1: SunZia Transmission, LLC (Docket No. EL10-39-000)
On January 29, 2010, SunZia Transmission, LLC (SunZia) filed a petition for declaratory order requesting that FERC find that all of the investors in SunZia may be allocated firm transmission rights commensurate with their investment in its transmission project, that certain investors may use up to 100 percent of their share of the capacity in the project to serve affiliated generators, and that certain investors may pre-subscribe up to 100 percent of their share of the capacity in the project through long-term firm contracts. Agenda item E-1 may be an order responding to SunZia’s request.
E-6: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER09-1581-001, -003)
On October 9, 2009, FERC accepted a Generator Interconnection Agreement (GIA) between the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO), Northern States Power Company and Community Wind North LLC (Community Wind) effective August 14, 2009, but conditioned acceptance upon MISO modifying the GIA to remove provisions assigning cost responsibility to Community Wind for the Brookings County-Twin Cities 345 kV transmission line (Brookings Line) without prejudice to MISO submitting appropriate support for such assignment of cost responsibility. Several parties sought clarification or rehearing of the October 9 order. On November 9, 2009, MISO submitted a compliance filing, including a revised GIA that removed the cost allocation language in accordance with the October 9 order but also made the GIA “provisional” or “temporary” and subject to certain operating limitations until such time as further study with regard to allocation of costs associated with the Brookings Line is complete. The compliance filing was protested. Agenda item E-6 may be an order addressing the rehearing and clarification requests and/or as the compliance filing.
E-7: Western Electric Coordinating Council (Docket No. EL10-56-000)
This is a new docket.
E-8: AEP Service Corp., et al. (Docket Nos. ER97-4143-021, et al.)
In June and July 2009, AEP Service Corporation, AEP Energy Partners, Inc., CSW Energy Services, Inc., Central and South West Services, Inc., Cleco Power LLC, Acadia Power Partners, LLC, Cleco Evangeline LLC, The Empire District Electric Company, Kansas City Power & Light Company, KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, OGE Energy Resources, Inc., Southwestern Public Service Company, Westar Energy, Inc., and Kansas Gas and Electric Company filed updated market power analyses for the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) region, as supplemented with additional information responding to FERC staff inquiries concerning the SIL analyses provided by SPP. Agenda item E-8 may be an order concerning these updated market power analyses.
E-9: ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool (Docket No. ER10-902-000)
On March 17, 2010, ISO New England Inc (ISO-NE) and New England Power Pool filed revisions to ISO-NE’s tariff implementing several changes to Market Rule 1, requiring capacity importers to submit energy offers at competitive prices and subjecting them to penalties for failing to comply with certain Forward Capacity Market requirements. Several parties commented on the filing. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the tariff filing.
E-10: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER09-1682-000, et al.)
On September 4, 2009, as corrected on September 30, 2009, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) requested authorization to apply new market mitigation rules to certain specific market participants, due to their offering behavior when committed for reliability as Day-Ahead Reliability Units. The identity of the market participants was not publicly disclosed and both NYISO and the market participants, in subsequent protests, requested that their identities and commercially sensitive information provided with the filings remain privileged. On November 3, 2009, FERC denied the request that the market participants’ identities be withheld, though it did permit certain commercially sensitive data to be kept confidential. FERC also found that the proposed new market mitigation rules had not been shown to be just and reasonable and required NYISO to submit additional information within 30 days of the November 3 order. It also required the generators to submit revised, redacted versions of their prior filings. NYISO, Seneca Power Partners, LLC, Sterling Power Partners, L.P., Shell Energy North America (US), LP and Saranac Power Partners, L.P. submitted compliance filings required by the November 3 order. Agenda item E-10 may be an order on the compliance filings.
E-11: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket Nos. EL07-39-004, -005; ER08-695-002, -003, et al.)
On September 30, 2008, FERC issued an order granting in part and denying in part requests for rehearing of an earlier order conditionally approving NYISO’s proposals to strengthen market mitigation in the In-City Installed Capacity market. In the September 30 order, FERC also accepted two NYISO compliance filings, subject to conditions. Several parties sought rehearing of the September 30 order. On October 30, 2008, NYISO submitted a compliance filing making changes to its tariff required by the September 30 order. Several parties protested NYISO’s compliance filing. Agenda item E-11 may be an order on rehearing and/or on NYISO’s compliance filing.
E-12: California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket Nos. ER09-1064-003, -004)
On April 28, 2009, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) filed proposed amendments to the CAISO Tariff to adopt a Resource Adequacy (RA) Standard Capacity Product and an Ancillary Services must-offer obligation for RA Resources. On June 26, 2009, FERC accepted in part and rejected in part CAISO’s proposed tariff amendments, and directed CAISO to make further revisions in a compliance filing. CAISO submitted its compliance filing on August 10, 2009, as revised on August 11, 2009. Agenda item E-12 may be an order addressing CAISO’s compliance filing.
E-13: California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket No. ER09-1064-001)
Several parties sought rehearing of the June 26 order noted in Agenda item E-12. Agenda item E-13 may be an order addressing the requests for rehearing.
E-14: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket Nos. ER05-1410-015, et al.)
On September 1, 2009, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) filed certain amendments to its Reliability Pricing Model (RPM), proposing an automated adjustment to the cost of new entry (CONE) parameter and also submitted a filing in compliance with a prior order revising certain tariff provisions regarding a hold-back for short lead-time resources and incremental auctions. On October 30, 2009, FERC accepted PJM’s proposed tariff revisions, subject to conditions. Several parties filed requests for clarification or rehearing of the October 30 order. On December 29, 2009, PJM filed a compliance filing in compliance with the October 30 order. Agenda item E-14 may be an order addressing PJM’s compliance filing and/or the requests for rehearing and clarification.
E-15: Interstate Power and Light Company v. ITC Midwest, LLC (Docket No. EL09-11-001)
On April 16, 2009, FERC issued an order denying Interstate Power and Light Company’s (IPL) complaint against ITC Midwest, LLC (ITCM), in which IPL sought relief from “ITCM’s improper implementation of its formula rate for FERC-jurisdictional transmission service for 2009 and beyond.” On May 15, 2009, IPL filed a request for rehearing and motion to reopen the record to admit into the record certain testimony filed in IPL’s retail rate case proceeding and IPL’s March 17, 2009, Form 8-K filing with the SEC. In addition, the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities, Missouri River Energy Services and WPPI Energy (Midwest TDUs) filed a request for rehearing in which they supported IPL’s arguments. Agenda item E-15 may be an order addressing the requests for rehearing and/or the motion to reopen the record.
E-16: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER10-73-001, -002; ER10-74-001, -002); Dairyland Power Cooperative v. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Docket No. EL10-9-001)
MISO filed tariff revisions on October 16, 2009 that would prospectively eliminate the carve-out from the MISO market scheduling and settlement requirements for grandfathered agreements (GFAs) between new transmission owners and their affiliates, owner-members, and other transmission owners. Separately, MISO filed revisions to Attachment P of its tariff to modify the classification for certain existing GFAs of Dairyland Power Cooperative (Dairyland) such that some of Dairyland’s GFAs would not be carved-out. Dairyland filed a complaint against MISO in Docket No. EL10-9-000 on October 30, 2009, alleging that MISO violated its tariff by failing to revise Attachment P to include certain of its GFAs in the carve-out. On December 15, 2009, FERC accepted MISO’s proposal to prospectively limit the availability of carved-out treatment for GFAs between new transmission owners and an affiliate or owner-member, subject to compliance filings, but rejected MISO’s proposal to eliminate the availability of carved-out GFA status for existing agreements between a prospective new member and another transmission owner. Further, FERC denied Dairyland’s complaint. Several parties sought rehearing or clarification of the December 15 order. On January 14, 2010, MISO submitted compliance filings pursuant to the December 15 order. Agenda item E-16 may be an order addressing the requests for rehearing or clarification and/or the compliance filings.
G-1: Contract Reporting Requirements of Intrastate Natural Gas Companies (Docket No. RM09-2-000)
On July 16, 2009, FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to revise the contract reporting requirements for (1) intrastate pipelines providing interstate services pursuant to section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA); and (2) Hinshaw pipelines providing interstate services subject to FERC’s Natural Gas Act section 1(c) jurisdiction pursuant to blanket certificates issued under section 284.224 of FERC’s regulations. The NOPR proposed to amend section 284.126(b) of FERC’s regulations to, among other things, require that NGPA section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines make quarterly reports that contain certain information for each transportation and storage service provided during the preceding calendar quarter and require that the reports be filed in a standardized electronic format to be developed by FERC staff. Agenda item G-1 may be an order addressing the NOPR.
G-2: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Docket Nos. RP10-134-000; RP10-450-000)
Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) filed pro forma tariff sheets in Docket No. RP10-134-000 on November 9, 2009, proposing as an alternative fuel retainage recovery mechanism an incentive fuel savings sharing program utilizing fixed fuel retention percentages (IFF proposal). Columbia Gulf proposed replacing its current Transportation Retainage Adjustment (TRA) mechanism with the IFF proposal. Columbia Gulf conditioned its proposal on FERC’s acceptance, without modification or condition, of Columbia Gulf’s July 1, 2009 filing of its Annual TRA filing in Docket No. RP09-423-002. On December 10, 2009, FERC ordered a technical conference be held to address the issues raised by Columbia Gulf’s November 9 filing. FERC acknowledged that the proceeding presents interrelated issues with the TRA filing and indicated that the technical conference would also consider the issues in Docket No. RP09-423 that relate to the IFF proposal. On March 1, 2010, Columbia Gulf submitted its annual TRA filing. Columbia Gulf noted that its IFF proposal is still pending before FERC and indicated that it is proposing to keep existing retainage rates in place until FERC approves the IFF proposal “in a manner satisfactory to Columbia Gulf or November 1, 2010, whichever date occurs first.” Agenda item G-2 may be an order addressing Columbia Gulf’s filings and/or the technical conference.
H-1: Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Docket No. P-405-096 and P-2355-012)
On March 3, 2010, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects issued a decision regarding the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project and Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project, deciding that the Susquehanna River Basin Commission’s (“SRBC”) study disputes would not be considered under the formal study dispute resolution process. On March 8, 2010, SRBC requested rehearing of this decision, arguing that SRBC’s participation in the formal study dispute resolution process was needed to facilitate the achievement of SRBC’s statutory mandate and that FERC’s denial of its study disputes was arbitrary and capricious. In the alternative, SRBC requested rehearing, and expedited consideration, of the Study Plan Determinations for the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project and the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project that were issued by the Director of the Office of Energy Projects on February 4, 2010. SRBC also requested that FERC stay any additional proceedings in the integrated license process proceedings for the projects until an order on rehearing is issued. Agenda item H-1 may be an order on rehearing.
H-2: Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Docket No. P-405-097)
On March 5, 2010, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects issued an order regarding the Conowingo Dam re-licensing project in which it declined to consider the disputes of Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Research Program, and Department of the Environment (collectively, the “State Agencies”) with the Conowingo Project Study Plan Determination. The State Agencies timely filed a request for rehearing in which it asked FERC to accept its Notice of Study Dispute and to initiate a formal study dispute resolution process or, in the alternative, for rehearing of the Conowingo Study Plan Determination. The State Agencies claimed that FERC failed to properly recognize the collaborative and coordinated review of the project undertaken in Maryland, and the State Agencies also identified numerous perceived errors with the Conowingo Project Study Plan Determination. Agenda item H-2 may be an order on the request for rehearing.
H-3: Northeast Hydrodevelopment, LLC (Docket Nos. P-13388-001, P-13389-001, P-13397-001, P-13413-001)
On March 3, 2010, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing formally cancelled the Preliminary Permits held by Northeast Hydrodevelopment, LLC (Northeast Hydro) for the Milton Three Ponds Project, the McLane Dam Project, the Mascoma Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project, and the Weare Reservoir Dam Hydroelectric Project in New Hampshire. In August 2009, FERC granted Northeast Hydro the Preliminary Permits for these four projects, with the requirement that Interim Status Reports be filed every six months. Northeast Hydro missed the initial filing date, and FERC issued a notice on January 15, 2010 stating that the Preliminary Permits would be cancelled if the required reports for the four projects were not received within 30 days. Northeast Hydro did not file the reports until March 15, 2010. Northeast timely filed a request for rehearing claiming that it never received the January 15, 2010 notice and was under the mistaken impression that the status reports were due on March 23, 2010. The Town of Milford, New Hampshire submitted a letter in support of the revocation of the Preliminary Permit for the McLane Dam Project. Agenda item H-3 may be an order on the request for rehearing.
C-1: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Docket No. CP09-68-001)
On November 19, 2009, FERC granted Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to undertake the Texas Eastern Market Area Crossing (TEMAX) Project and the Texas Eastern Incremental Market Area Expansion III (TIME III) Project. Texas Eastern intends for the TEMAX and TIME III Projects to provide 455,000 Dth/d of incremental firm transportation service for project shippers on its mainline system in Zones M2 and M3. Emerald Coal Resources, L.P., Freeport Resources Corp. and Freeport Mining, LLC, collectively, timely filed a request for rehearing of the November 19 order, arguing that FERC should address the mining-related safety issues concerning the Projects. Texas Eastern also timely filed a request for rehearing, claiming that FERC should permit it to accrue amounts for funds used in construction from a date prior to when Texas Eastern filed its certificate application for the TEMAX and TIME III Projects. Agenda item C-1 may be an order on the requests for rehearing.
C-2: MoBay Storage Hub, LLC (Docket No. CP06-398-002)
On December 10, 2009, MoBay Storage Hub, LLC (MoBay) submitted an Abbreviated Application to Amend the Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity Authorizing the Construction and Operation of a Natural Gas Storage Facility. FERC granted the original certificates in December 2006. In its current application, MoBay seeks to modify certain offshore facilities by adding nine new injection/withdrawal wells and two new caisson structures to its natural gas storage facility and to increase the certified storage capacity. On March 10, 2010, the Office of Energy Projects issued its Environmental Assessment, proposing several additional mitigation measures and recommending that FERC issue a finding of no significant environmental impact. Agenda item C-2 may be an order on the application.
C-3: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Docket No. CP09-420-001)
On January 6, 2010, FERC granted an Order Issuing Certificate, which authorized Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) to expand its existing Hall Summit and Tallulah Compressor Station in northern Louisiana through the construction and operation of three compressor units and yard and station piping (the Haynesville/ Perryville Expansion). As part of the January 6, 2010 order, FERC ordered an incremental recourse rate of US$0.1777 per Dth per day for transportation on the Haynesville/Perryville Expansion. Gulf South timely requested clarification, or in the alternative rehearing, from FERC that the incremental rate of US$0.1777 per Dth per day would be used in place of the current maximum rate for Zone 2 (which is US$0.1440 per Dth per day) in Gulf South’s zone rate matrix in situations where shippers who only contract for transportation on the Haynesville/Perryville Expansion facilities engage in inter-zone transportation hauls that use other receipt or delivery points on the Gulf South system. Agenda item C-3 may be an order on the request for clarification and/or rehearing.
C-4: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Docket No. CP10-2-000)
On October 9, 2009, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star) submitted an Abbreviated Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for its Elk Storage Expansion Project. Southern Star seeks to install and operate a natural gas compressor in Montgomery County, Kansas to increase the working gas capacity and the maximum daily withdrawal rate of the Elk City Storage Field, to amend its current operational plan and other operational changes for the storage field, and to use market-based rates. In response, numerous parties intervened and both the Kansas Corporation Commission and the Missouri Public Service Commission filed separate requests for a technical conference. On March 30, 2010, the Office of Energy Projects issued its Environmental Assessment, proposing several additional mitigation measures and recommending that FERC issue a finding of no significant environmental impact. Agenda item C-4 may be an order on the application.
C-5: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Docket No. CP09-444-000)
On July 17, 2009, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee Gas) submitted an application to construct, install, modify, replace, and operate certain pipeline and compression facilities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey that would become part of Tennessee Gas’ existing 300 Line System. This project would increase capacity on the 300 Line by 350,000 Dth per day of firm natural gas transportation service as well as implement general system upgrades to improve the overall reliability of the system. In response, numerous parties intervened and filed comments. On February 25, 2010, the Office of Energy Projects, in cooperation with the US Bureau of Land Management, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the US Army Corps of Engineers, issued its Environmental Assessment, finding that, with the implementation of numerous proposed mitigation measures, the project would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and that FERC should issue a finding of no significant environmental impact. Numerous parties filed comments on the Environmental Assessment. On May 14, 2010, FERC issued an order granting the certificate of public convenience and necessity, subject to conditions, and approving the proposed abandonment of certain compression facilities. Agenda item C-5 may be an additional order on the application.
C-6: Southern LNG Inc. (Docket No. RP10-173-000)
On November 23, 2009, Southern LNG Inc. (Southern LNG) submitted a petition for declaratory order asking FERC to authorize Southern LNG to lease and operate, on an unregulated basis, a liquefied natural gas (LNG) truck load facility to a newly formed affiliate and for that affiliate to be able to charge unregulated, market-based rates for the sale of the LNG and not to be subject to the Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers. The truck load facility would truck and market LNG imported through Southern LNG’s LNG marine terminal at Elba Island in Georgia. Agenda item C-6 may be an order on the petition for declaratory order.