Below are brief summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s September 19, 2009 meeting. Item Nos. E-2, E-3, and E-9 are not summarized as they have been omitted from the Commission’s agenda.

Administrative Items

A-1 (Docket No. AD02-1-000): This administrative item will address general agencyrelated 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 may be an update on the state of the energy markets.

Electric Items

E-1: Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Pubic Utilities (Docket No. RM05-5-017). On April 17, 2009, pursuant to FERC orders in this proceeding, the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) submitted a report to the Commission that, among other things, included Demand Side Management—Energy Efficiency subcommittee and Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) Executive Committee meeting minutes detailing the drafting and discussion of Demand Side Management standards and 2008 and 2009 WEQ Annual Plans. NAESB reported that the final WEQ demand response standards, which include definitions and business practice standards, address the measurement and verification characteristics of demand response products and services administered for application in the wholesale electricity market. NAESB indicated that the standards are intended to provide a common framework for transparency, accountability and consistency. No comments were submitted. Agenda item E-1 may be an order addressing the report.

E-4: North American Electric Reliability Corporation (Docket No. RR09-4-000). On May 21, 2009, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) filed a petition for approval of proposed revisions to the bylaws of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) related to its status as a NERC Regional Entity. Some of the proposals pertain to or would affect the performance of SPP Regional Entity functions and therefore required and received NERC approval. NERC indicated that it reviewed the remainder of the amendments and determined that they do not have reliability-related implications and none will impair SPP’s performance of its Regional Entity functions. No comments were submitted. Agenda item E-4 may be an order on the proposed amendments.

E-5: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. ER09-1192-000). On May 22, 2009, SPP submitted an application under section 205 of the Federal Power Act to propose revisions to its bylaws related to its status as a NERC Regional Entity. SPP stated that these revisions would be considered “Regional Entity Rules” under the Commission’s regulations and therefore also must be approved by NERC and filed with the Commission. SPP’s proposed revisions have been approved by NERC. Xcel Energy Services, Inc. and East Texas Electric Cooperatives intervened in this proceeding. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the proposed amendments.

E-6: California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket Nos. ER09-1247-000, -001). On June 1, 2009, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) submitted an application under section 205 of the Federal Power Act to propose amendments to the CAISO tariff to implement acceleration of CAISO’s payment timeline. CAISO asserted that the proposed tariff changes will shorten the payment calendar by shortening the timeframe for the CAISO’s release of its Initial Settlement Statement for each Trading Day from 38 to 7 Business Days and decrease the payment timeline from 38 Business Days after the last Trading Day of the month through semi-monthly invoicing. CAISO claims that this will decrease the average cash clearing schedule from approximately 80 to 25 calendar days. CAISO also proposed increasing the certainty in final payments by implementing a sunset provision that will permit adjustments to Settlement Statements for 36 months after the Trading Day, and thereafter only by direction of the Board or order of the Commission. Several parties intervened in these proceedings and one party filed a protest. Agenda item E-6 may be an order on CAISO’s proposed amendments.

E-7: California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket No. ER09-240-001). On March 17, 2009, the California Department of Water Resources State Water Project (SWP) submitted a request for rehearing of the Commission’s February 19, 2009 Order which generally approved CAISO’s proposed amendment’s concerning Parameter Tuning used when the CAISO cannot rely upon the economic outcomes of its Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade (MRTU) tariff systems. SWP argued that under CAISO’s proposal parameter values would be set to undermine the integrity of MRTU’s Integrated Forward Market by permitting curtailments of Participating Load self-schedules that will not actually occur. SWP asserted that this outcome would contradict FERC precedent that MRTU will enhance reliability by ensuring accurate, realistic Day Ahead schedules enabling the CAISO to manage congestion prior to Real Time in a non-discriminatory fashion. In addition, SWP argued that under CAISO’s proposal, SWP’s Participating Load would be exposed to potentially significant costs attributable to cost allocations and real time purchases forced upon it through such CAISO action. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the request for rehearing.

E-8: Big Rivers Electric Corporation (NJ09-3-000). On April 22, 2009, Big Rivers Electric Corporation (Big Rivers) submitted revisions to its “safe harbor” Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) to reflect certain changes in Big Rivers’ operations and in compliance with Order Nos. 890, 890-A, 890-B and 890-C. Big Rivers indicated that the changes reflect the restructuring of Big Rivers as part of which Big Rivers will have terminated a July 1998 long-term lease of its generation facilities to various subsidiaries of E.ON US, LLC (the Lease Transaction). Big Rivers requested that the Commission issue a declaratory order finding that Big Rivers’ OATT, as revised, satisfies the Commission’s comparability standards and can be considered by Big Rivers to be an acceptable “safe harbor tariff” going forward upon termination of the Lease Transaction. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on Big River’s filing.

E-10: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket Nos. ER09-650-001, -002). On February 3, 2009, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) submitted revisions to its OATT and Operating Agreement to make clarifying and other changes to PJM’s credit risk management rules. The changes were intended to reduce credit risk exposure to PJM’s members by shortening billing and settlement periods in conjunction with a reduction in unsecured credit allowances. PJM also sought the ability to initiate timely remedies to member default through the close out and liquidation of the defaulting member’s forward positions in the Financial Transmission Right markets. On April 3, 2009, FERC accepted PJM’s proposed tariff revisions, subject to a compliance filing to make additional tariff revisions consistent with those approved in the order. PJM submitted its compliance filing on May 4, 2009, which garnered several comments from intervenors, and one intervenor sought rehearing of the April 3, 2009 order. Agenda item E-10 may be an order on rehearing and/or PJM’s compliance filing.

E-11: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. ER09-497- 001). On January 5, 2009, PJM filed amendments to Schedule 12-Appendix of its OATT to incorporate cost responsibility assignments for 251 baseline upgrades included in the two most recent updates to its Regional Transmission Expansion Plan approved by the PJM Board of Managers. Nineteen of the upgrades will operate at or above 500 kV, and 232 upgrades will operate below 500 kV. PJM requested an effective date of April 5, 2009. Recognizing that issues regarding cost responsibility assignments to merchant transmission facilities are still pending before FERC in Docket No. ER06-456, PJM requested that FERC accept its filing subject to refund and the outcome of further proceedings in that docket. Numerous parties intervened and protested this filing. On April 3, 2009, FERC issued an order conditionally accepting in part PJM’s revisions, suspending them for a nominal period to become effective April 5, 2009 subject to refund and the outcome of further proceedings in Docket No. ER06-456, and directed PJM to submit a compliance filing to correctly identify the owners of certain listed upgrades and assign the cost of certain 500 kV circuit breakers on a regionwide basis. PJM submitted its compliance filing on May 4, 2009, which was accepted on July 2, 2009. Several parties sought rehearing of the April 3, 2009 order, and agenda item E-11 may be the order on rehearing.

E-12: California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket No. ER08-1317-002). On July 28, 2008, CAISO submitted revisions to its OATT that amended its large generator interconnection process, in response to industry and FERC concern over backlogs in RTO/ISO interconnection queues. FERC conditionally accepted CAISO’s tariff revisions on September 26, 2008, and denied rehearing of its order on May 21, 2009. On November 25, 2008, CAISO submitted its compliance filing in accordance with the September 26, 2008 order, clarifying numerous aspects of its revised large generator interconnection process. Agenda item E-12 may address CAISO’s compliance filing.

E-13: Termoelectrica US, LLC (Docket No. ER08-53). On October 9, 2007, Termoelectrica US, LLC (Termoelectrica) filed a report regarding certain transactions during June and July 2007 in the CAISO real-time energy markets for which Termoelectrica was seller and the price exceeded the FERC-established US$400/MWh cap. This report was made in accordance with several FERC orders following the California energy crisis regarding a price mitigation methodology for electricity sold into CAISO real-time markets. As part of its price mitigation methodology, FERC required that, at the end of each month in which a generator submitted a bid higher than the US$400/MWh cap, the generator must file with FERC and provide CAISO a report detailing cost information justifying the higher bid. Termoelectrica sought clarification from FERC regarding this reporting requirement, specifically seeking waiver for generators selling under a must-offer obligation where the price of the transaction is set by a proxy bid calculated pursuant to the CAISO OATT, rather than a volitional bid. Termoelectrica also requested that, if FERC does not grant the waiver, the timing of the reporting requirement be revised to require filing a report after settlement data is received by the generator from CAISO, instead of at the end of the month in which the sales occurred, because such generators might not know in advance of receiving such data that the proxy bids exceeded the FERC-imposed cap. Agenda item E-13 may address Termoelectrica’s requested waivers and clarifications.

E-14: Black Oak Energy, L.L.C., et al. (Docket No. EL08-14- 002). On December 3, 2007, Black Oak Energy, L.L.C., EPIC Merchant Energy, L.P. and SESCO Enterprises, L.L.C. (collectively, the Financial Marketers) filed a complaint with FERC against PJM, alleging that the PJM OATT unduly discriminates against financial, or “virtual,” market participants by allocating physical transmission line losses to virtual transactions and by excluding virtual transactions from the redistribution of excess marginal transmission line loss revenues collected by PJM. On March 6, 2008, FERC denied the Financial Marketers’ complaint. The Financial Marketers sought rehearing of this order, which was denied on October 16, 2008 with respect to the first issue of allocation of physical transmission line losses to virtual transactions and granted with respect to the second issue of entitlement to share in surplus line loss revenues. Regarding the second issue, FERC held that the Financial Marketers were not entitled to a credit based on their proportionate load ratio share and their payment of market operations costs, but granted rehearing with respect to payments of transmission charges and required PJM to propose a method of including in the credit others besides network service users who contribute to the fixed costs of the transmission grid or to show cause why such a credit should not be provided. On March 26, 2009, PJM filed revisions to its OATT in compliance with this requirement. The Financial Marketers protested PJM’s filing, alleging that PJM’s proposal improperly allocates transmission line loss surpluses based on whether a transaction serves load, rather than on whether a transaction supports the fixed costs of the transmission system, and alleging that PJM’s proposal excludes pure virtual transactions from allocation of such surpluses. Agenda item E-14 may address PJM’s March 26, 2009 compliance filing.

E-15: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. ER09-730-002). On February 19, 2009, as amended March 30, 2009, PJM filed changes to its OATT in order to permit black start service providers the opportunity to recover incremental costs associated with compliance with NERC critical infrastructure reliability standards. PJM also proposed revisions addressing black start service providers’ ability to seek independent, FERC-approved capital investment recovery in lieu of PJM OATT Schedule 6A formulaic revenue recovery. PJM requested an effective date of April 21, 2009. On May 29, 2009, FERC issued an order accepting the tariff revisions subject to a compliance filing. PJM submitted its compliance filing on June 29, 2009, clarifying certain refund obligations, removing language from PJM’s revised formula rate related to providers that elect to forego new or additional black start capital costs prior to April 21, 2009, and clarifying provisions regarding recovery of NERC penalties and the cost of insurance to indemnify against such penalties. PJM’s market monitor filed comments in support of retaining the formula language regarding providers that elect to forego new or additional black start capital costs prior to April 21, 2009, arguing that the language would preclude over-recovery by black start service providers. Agenda item E-15 may be the order addressing PJM’s compliance filing.

Gas Items

G-1: Revised Filing Requirements for Centralized Service Companies Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, the Federal Power Act, and the Natural Gas Act (Docket No. RM09-21-000). This is a new rulemaking docket.

G-2: Saltville Gas Storage Company, L.L.C. (Docket Nos. RP08-479-002, -003); East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (Docket Nos. RP08-487-002, -003); Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Docket Nos. RP07-139-006, -007). On August 1, 2008, Saltville Gas Storage Company, L.L.C. (Saltville) and East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee) filed proposed changes to their respective tariffs concerning, among other things, a net present value (NPV) allocation methodology for available capacity to include the probability of default as one of its factors. A similar proposal had previously been made by Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin). On February 16, 2007, FERC accepted and suspended the proposed changes to Algonquin’s tariff, subject to refund and conditions. FERC accepted and suspended the proposed tariff changes of both Saltville and East Tennessee on August 29, 2008, subject to refund and conditions, and subject to the outcome of a technical conference. On September 26, 2008, FERC issued a Notice of Technical Conference to address the issues raised in the proceedings for Saltville, East Tennessee and Algonquin. All three companies are subsidiaries of Spectra and are collectively referred to as the Spectra Companies. The technical conference was convened on October 22, 2008. Subsequently, the Spectra Companies notified FERC that they met with their customers and, in lieu of comments and reply comments to the technical conference, filed a Stipulation and Agreement in the three non-consolidated dockets on December 17, 2008 (Settlements). On February 26, 2009, FERC issued an order approving the Settlements subject to conditions relating to the collateral required of shippers with credit ratings less than BBB- (noncreditworthy shippers). FERC found that the proposed Settlements discriminated against shippers rated less than BBB- by requiring the posting of collateral greater than what is justified by the NPV bid evaluation formula used by the pipeline. FERC therefore approved the Settlements subject to the condition that the Spectra Companies revise the methodology for determining the amount of collateral a non-creditworthy shipper would need to provide in order to avoid a reduction in the NPV of its bids. FERC further directed the Spectra Companies to provide an explanation of the basis upon which they calculate the reduction in the bid. The Spectra Companies sought rehearing or clarification of the February 26, 2009 order on March 30, 2009, and argued that FERC should have approved the Settlements without condition or modification because each of the Settlements is an uncontested settlement, and FERC has not explained its departure from its typical course of accepting uncontested settlements without condition or modification. Agenda item G-2 may be an order addressing the Sempra Companies’ request for rehearing or clarification of the February 26, 2009 order.

Hydro Items

H-1: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (Docket No. P-2835-031). On May 1, 2009, FERC issued an Order Modifying Whitewater Access Proposal for New York State Electric & Gas Corporation’s Rainbow Falls Hydroelectric Project on the Ausable River in New York. American Whitewater, a non-profit river conservation and whitewater paddling organization, filed a timely request for rehearing challenging the Order’s restrictions on public access to the Ausable River below Rainbow Falls from Memorial Day weekend to October 31. Agenda item H-1 may be an order on rehearing.

H-2: Update of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Fees Schedule for Annual Charges for the Use of Government Lands (Docket No. RM09-6-001). On February 17, 2009, FERC issued an updated fees schedule for fiscal year 2009 for the use of government lands by hydroelectric licensees. The FERC Federal Land Use Charges Group, a coalition of hydroelectric licensees, timely challenged this fee schedule. Agenda item H-2 may be an order addressing that challenge.

H-3: Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Docket No. P-12514-029). On May 20, 2009, FERC issued an Order Modifying and Approving Woody Debris Management Plan. Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), licensee of the Norway- Oakdale Hydroelectric Project, timely requested rehearing of the portion of the Order concerning the removal and disposal of nonorganic debris. In addition, NIPSCO made a motion for extension of time for compliance with the non-organic debris requirement. Agenda item H-3 may be an order on rehearing or on the request to extend the time for compliance.

H-4: PPL Maine, LLC, PPL Great Works, LLC and Bangor Pacific Hydro Associates (Docket No. HB131-08-1-000). On June 29, 2009, PPL Maine, LLC, PPL Great Works, LLC and Bangor Pacific Hydro Associates (collectively, the PPL Parties) submitted a Motion for Partial Summary Disposition requesting that FERC determine that the PPL Parties are not liable to Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC (GLHA) for any headwater benefits prior to May 7, 1999 (the date GLHA’s predecessor-in-interest waived headwater benefits). Agenda item H-4 may be an order addressing the motion for summary disposition.

H-5: PacifiCorp (Docket No. P-2630-037). On June 23, 2009, FERC issued an Order Modifying and Approving Whitewater Boating Flow Release Plan and Whitewater Boating Access Monitoring Plan for the Prospect 1,2 and 4 Hydroelectric Project. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife requested rehearing of the Order and seeks to require the licensee to collect specific information on the physical and biological impacts on fish and aquatic insects related to the artificial high flow releases during historically low flow summer months for whitewater boating. Agenda item H-5 may be an order on rehearing.

Certificate Items

C-1: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC (Docket Nos. CP08- 6-002, CP09-56-000). On December 30, 2008, Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC (MEP) filed an application to amend its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued under Docket No. CP08-6 (MEP Amendment). On January 29, 2009, MEP filed an application for the MEP Expansion Project in Docket No. CP09-56 (MEP Expansion). Under the MEP Amendment application, MEP proposed to move the previously authorized location of the Vicksburg Compressor Station approximately 3.5 miles to the east, and install two Caterpillar G16 compressor units instead of the previously Certificated Caterpillar G12 compressor units at the Atlanta Compressor Station. Under the MEP Expansion application, MEP proposed to install an additional compressor unit at the Lamar Compressor Station, remove the compression-capacity cap on the compressor units at the Atlanta Compressor Station, install a new inlet filter/separator at the Perryville Compressor Station, and install a new compressor unit at the new, relocated Vicksburg Compressor Station. On July 29, 2009, FERC staff issued its prepared Environmental Assessment (EA) on the natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by MEP. FERC staff concluded that approval of MEP’s proposed projects, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. FERC distributed copies of the EA and requested comments by August 28, 2009. MEP filed comments on August 27, 2009. Agenda item C-1 may be an order addressing the MEP Amendment and Expansion.

C-2: Mississippi Hub, LLC (Docket No. CP09-110). On April 6, 2009, Mississippi Hub, LLC (MS Hub) filed an application with FERC for a certificate of public convenience and necessity, seeking authorization to modify its previously-authorized salt cavern natural gas storage facility in Simpson County, Mississippi, and construct and operate new natural gas pipeline facilities in Simpson, Jefferson Davis, and Covington Counties, Mississippi. The proposed modifications would increase the working natural gas storage capacity of the two previously-authorized solutionmined salt storage caverns from 6.0 Bcf to 7.5 Bcf in each cavern and would create new interconnects with the Southeast Supply Header pipeline and the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation pipeline. The proposed modifications would amend a February 15, 2007 FERC Order that authorized MS Hub to construct the Bond Salt Dome Project, which is currently under construction, in Docket No. CP07-4. On July 17, 2009, FERC staff issued an Environmental Assessment of the modifications, concluding that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigation measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Agenda item C-2 may be the order addressing MS Hub’s application.

C-3: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (CP09- 88-000). On March 31, 2009, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) requested authorization to construct and operate two bidirectional interconnections on Transco’s mainline, one in Hart County, Georgia, and one in Anderson County, South Carolina, to allow Transco to receive regasified liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Elba Express Company, LLC’s (Elba Express) pipeline facilities, which transport regasified LNG from Southern LNG, Inc’s Elba Island, Georgia, LNG terminal. The Elba Express-Georgia Interconnection will provide Transco with the ability to receive up to 1,175 MMcfd of regasified LNG in Transco’s Zone 4. Transco proposes to design, construct, own and operate all facilities from the tie-in point with Elba Express to the proposed tap valves on Transco’s mainline. The Elba Express-South Carolina Interconnection would provide Transco with the ability to receive up to 1,175 MMcfd of regasified LNG in Transco’s Zone 5. Transco estimated the total costs of the proposed facilities to be approximately US$25.3 million. Elba Express would reimburse Transco for all costs associated with the facilities. Several parties intervened in this proceeding and Washington Gas Light Company filed a protest. Agenda item C-3 may be an order on Transco’s proposal.

C-4: Arlington Storage Company, LLC (Docket No. CP08-96- 001). On September 10, 2009, Arlington Storage Company, LLC (ASC) provided notice to FERC that interim operations of the Thomas Corners Natural Gas Storage Project to offer interruptible storage and wheeling service had begun. As the notice was four days out of time, ASC requested leave to file out of time. Agenda item C-4 may be an order addressing ASC’s notice filing.