A-1: (Docket No. AD02-1-000)
This administrative item will address FERC’s Strategic Plan.
A-2: (Docket No. AD02-7-000)
This administrative item will address customer matters, reliability, security, and market operations.
E-1: Control and Affiliation for Purposes of Market-Based Rate Requirements under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and the Requirements of Section 203 of the Federal Power Act (RM09-16-000)
This is a new rulemaking docket. This rulemaking docket may address issues raised by the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) in Docket No. PL09-3.
E-2: Credit Reforms in Organized Wholesale Electric Markets (RM10-13-000)
This is a new rulemaking docket.
E-3: Electricity Market Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the Federal Power Act (RM10-12-000)
This is a new rulemaking docket.
E-4: Integration of Variable Energy Resources (RM10-11-000)
This is a new rulemaking docket.
E-5: Pioneer Transmission, LLC. (ER09-75-002)
On October 15, 2008, Pioneer Transmission, LLC (Pioneer) filed tariff sheets pursuant to Federal Power Act (FPA) sections 205 and 219 to the open access transmission tariffs administered by the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM). The proposed tariff sheets established a formula rate for transmission services rendered for the Pioneer project, which consists of a 765 kV transmission line in Indiana that will connect PJM and MISO and facilitate the interconnection of over 4,000 MW of new wind generation. The proposed tariff sheets also reflected four transmission rate incentives for the Pioneer project. On March 27, 2009, FERC issued an order finding that the project satisfied the criteria set forth in FPA section 219 of ensuring reliability and/or reducing the cost of delivered power by reducing transmission congestion. FERC approved most of the rate incentives Pioneer requested. FERC also established settlement and hearing procedures to discuss issues involving Pioneer’s proposed formula rate. Several parties sought rehearing and/or clarification of the March 27 order. Subsequently, on August 13, 2009, Pioneer filed an uncontested settlement agreement, which an administrative law judge (ALJ) certified on September 23, 2009. The ALJ stated that the settlement resolves all issues set for hearing in the March 27 order. Agenda item E-5 may be an order addressing the requests for rehearing and/or an order on the settlement.
E-6: Western Grid Development, LLC (EL10-19-000)
On November 20, 2009, Western Grid Development, LLC (WGD) filed a petition for declaratory order: (i) requesting that FERC find that the energy storage devices to be used in WGD’s proposed projects are properly classified as wholesale transmission facilities subject to FERC’s jurisdiction; (ii) concluding that the WGD project locations where transmission reliability is at issue (WGD Projects) are entitled to incentive-based rate treatment pursuant to FERC regulations; (iii) authorizing the specific rate incentives set forth in the filing for such WGD Projects and (iv) providing insight into whether FERC perceives any barriers that could prevent the California Independent System Operator from considering the WGD solution on equal footing with other utility and nonutility proposed transmission alternatives to solve reliability problems. Agenda item E-6 may be an order addressing WGD’s petition for declaratory order.
E-7: ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool (Docket No. ER09-1051-000)
On April 28, 2009, pursuant to Order No. 719, ISO New England (ISO-NE) submitted its compliance filing and amendments to ISO-NE’s tariff. Order No. 719 required changes in organized wholesale power markets in four areas: 1) demand response and market pricing; 2) long-term power contracting; 3) market monitoring policies and 4) the responsiveness of regional transmission organizations and independent system operators to their customers and other stakeholders. ISO-NE indicated that since 2003 the participation of demand resources in New England’s demand response program and the Forward Capacity Market has grown from 100 MW to more than 2,500 MW. ISO-NE has implemented a number of changes which it claims will allow it to dispatch active demand resources in the quantities and locations needed by the system operator to alleviate reserve deficiencies and enable market participants to better comply with instructions. ISO-NE also asserted that its existing price mitigation plan satisfies Order No. 719 requirements. ISO-NE stated that its resources and systems will not be available to undertake any initiatives with respect to facilitating any long-term contracting changes until the second quarter of 2010. ISO-NE proposed revisions to its tariff to consolidate market monitoring provisions and conform to FERC’s new rules for market monitors. Agenda item E-7 may be an order addressing the compliance filing and amendments to ISO-NE’s tariff.
E-8: Modification of Interchange and Transmission Loading Relief Reliability Standards and Electric Reliability Organization Interpretation of Specific Requirements of Four Reliability Standards (Docket No. RM08-7-002)
On April 20, 2009, the NRG Companies, the Electric Power Supply Association and Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc. (collectively, Rehearing Parties) filed a request for rehearing and clarification of Order No. 713-A (TLR Order). The Rehearing Parties asserted that FERC erred in accepting Reliability Standard IRO-006-4, which addresses transmission loading relief requirements, which provide a mechanism to manage and, if necessary, curtail interchange transactions. The Rehearing Parties argued that: FERC failed to consider the impact of the proposed standard on markets and competition; FERC erred in finding that the TLR reliability standards were just and reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest, despite evidence that the proposed standard violates the curtailment priority established by the pro forma tariff; FERC failed to adequately justify its departure from its prior holding that the North American Electric Reliability Council’s (NERC) TLR procedures must end undue discrimination against interchange transactions; the TLR Order is arbitrary and capacious, and fails to exercise reasoned decision making because it accepts the proposed standard, even while acknowledging that the proposed standard results in arbitrary curtailments of firm transactions; FERC unlawfully deferred to the NERC process on competition issues and failed to exercise its independent assessment of whether the NERC proposal is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory and the TLR Order violates FPA Section 215 by failing to remand an unlawful standard back to NERC. The Rehearing Parties also requested clarification that NERC must address the Rehearing Parties’ concerns within a set time period and either fix the Interchange Distribution Calculator (IDC) or eliminate reliance on the IDC to make curtailment decisions. Agenda item E-8 may be an order addressing the request for rehearing and clarification.
E-9: Transmission Loading Relief Reliability Standard and Curtailment Priorities (Docket No. RM10-9-000)
This is a new rulemaking docket.
E-10: North American Electric Reliability Corporation (Docket No. RR10-1-000)
This is a new docket.
E-11: North American Electric Reliability Corporation (Docket No. RD09-10-000)
On August 14, 2009, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of proposed reliability standard NUC-001-2—Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination. The petition was filed to comply with FERC’s directive in Order No. 716 to reduce ambiguity in Requirement 9.3.5 of the currently approved Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination Reliability Standard (NUC-001-1). NERC asserted that NUC-001-2 should address the coordination of interface requirements for bulk power system planning and operations and nuclear power plant licensing requirements for off-site power necessary to enable safe nuclear plant shutdown. NERC requested an effective date of the later of either April 1, 2010 or the first day of the first quarter after FERC approval. NERC also sought approval to retire reliability standard NUC-001-1 upon the effective date of NUC-001-2. Agenda item E-11 may be an order addressing the petition for approval.
E-12: California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket Nos. ER09-1247-002, -003, -004)
On September 17, 2009, FERC conditionally accepted for filing, subject to modification, the revised tariff sheets of the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), which contained proposed amendments to the CAISO tariff to accelerate the process by which CAISO invoices and settles market transactions through a payment acceleration program. The cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton, Pasadena and Riverside in California (the Six Cities), while generally supporting the September 17 order, timely requested rehearing of Paragraph 40 of the order, which accepted CAISO’s proposal to allow market participants only seven calendar days to dispute incremental changes in any fourth recalculation settlement statement under the CAISO’s Payment Acceleration program that became effective on November 1, 2009. The Six Cities argued that the September 17 order assumed that the market participant would have prior notice of the circumstances that would give rise to such changes and an opportunity to investigate those circumstances. Agenda item E-12 may be an order on rehearing.
E-13: Xcel Energy Services, Inc. (Docket No. ER10-305- 000), Public Service Company of Colorado (Docket Nos. EL10-5-000, ER95-1207-000), Western Systems Power Pool Inc. (Docket No. ER09-980-001)
On April 10, 2009, as amended on August 26, 2009, Western Systems Power Pool, Inc. (WSPP), at the request of Xcel Energy Services, Inc. (Xcel) (on behalf of Public Service Company of Colorado and Southwestern Public Service Company), submitted a proposal to incorporate cost-based rate schedules into Schedule Q of the WSPP Agreement. On October 22, 2009, FERC accepted the rate sheets incorporating the proposed Southwestern Public Service Company rate and the proposed Public Service Company of Colorado rates, as modified, into Schedule Q. The October 22 order also instituted a proceeding under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to determine whether the Public Service Company of Colorado’s US$15.16/kW/month demand charge under its Coordination Sales Tariff remains just and reasonable. In a filing on November 23, 2009, Xcel, on behalf of its affiliate Public Service Company of Colorado, submitted revised rate sheets to modify the maximum demand charges under Public Service Company of Colorado’s Electric Coordination Service Tariff. Using the units most likely to participate methodology, Xcel noted that the Public Service Company of Colorado’s demand charge should be US$10.62/kW/month. Agenda item E-13 may be an order in the Section 206 proceeding and/or Xcel’s proposed rate revisions.
E-14: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. EL09-40-000)
On March 19, 2009, FERC accepted a compliance filing by Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) which contained revisions to section 2.2 of SPP’s open access transmission tariff (OATT) to incorporate certain rollover policies adopted by FERC in Order No. 890 (such as the five-year minimum contract term and the one-year notice period related to a firm transmission customer’s right to renew or rollover its contract). The March 19 order also instituted a proceeding under FPA Section 206 to determine the justness and reasonableness of certain language in section 2.2 of SPP’s existing OATT. FERC was concerned that the language in section 2.2 of SPP’s existing OATT that required the incumbent customer to accept a contract term at least as long as the longest term competing request may not have been just and reasonable. The refund effective date was established as March 27, 2009. Agenda item E-14 may be an order on the Section 206 proceeding.
E-15: Power and Water Resources Pooling Authority v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket No. EL10-7-000)
On October 20, 2009, the Power and Water Resources Pooling Authority (PWRPA) filed a complaint against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) alleging violation of PG&E’s Open-Access Wholesale Distribution Tariff. PWRPA alleged that PG&E’s refusal to provide service to PWPRA for delivery of power to one of PWPRA’s retail customers under PG&E’s Wholesale Distribution Tariff was unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory and in violation of PG&E’s Wholesale Distribution Tariff. PWRPA also requested that FERC issue an order requiring PG&E to interconnect and provide the requested service to PWRPA on an expedited basis. In its answer to the complaint, PG&E disputed PWRPA’s claim that it is a utility entitled to serve electricity at retail to the broad public under California law, and PG&E filed a declaratory relief action in California Superior Court to resolve this issue. PG&E argued that PWRPA is only a joint effort among fifteen customers to meet their own end-use loads and that PWRPA does not own any generation, transmission lines or distribution lines. PG&E claimed that this is insufficient to qualify PWRPA as a public utility. PG&E requested that FERC dismiss or stay PWRPA’s complaint since the issue involves a matter of California state law. Agenda item E-15 may be an order on the complaint.
E-16: California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket No. OA08-62-005)
On July 20, 2009, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) submitted a compliance filing containing certain revisions to CAISO’s OATT to comply with Order No. 890 (as directed by FERC in a May 21, 2009 order). The revisions include: (1) modification to Section 20.4(a) (substituting “shall” for “may” when discussing the disclosure of information submitted through the Transmission Planning Process); (2) clarification to Section 24.2.3 (adding the term “participating transmission owner” to clarify that all projects need to be submitted through the transmission planning process request window); (3) correction of typographical errors identified by the cities of Anaheim, Asuza, Banning, Colton, Pasadena and Riverside in California and (4) clarification as to the minimum time periods between transmission planning process milestones (to ensure that the time periods between the developing and posting of the Unified Study Assumptions and Study Plans, the posting of CAISO’s technical study results and the posting of the draft annual transmission plan do not become compressed). The Bay Area Municipal Transmission Group filed a Protest concerning the time period revisions in the CAISO compliance filing. Agenda item E-16 may be an order on the compliance filing.
E-17: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. EL05-121-006)
On August 6, 2009, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that FERC needed to provide further explanation for its decision in Opinion Nos. 494 and 494-A to allocate the costs of 500 kV and above transmission facilities in PJM on a system-wide basis and remanded the proceeding back to FERC. On November 25, 2009, the Supporting Companies (which include Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Pepco Holdings, PPL Electric Utility Corporation, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc.) filed a Motion for Prompt Resolution of the Remand Proceedings. The Supporting Companies requested that FERC promptly issue an order on remand, based on the existing record and without any additional evidentiary hearing, upholding its determination to allocate the costs of 500 kV and above transmission facilities in PJM on a system-wide basis as being just and reasonable. Other parties, such as Dayton Power and Light Company and Exelon Corporation, have requested a hearing on the issues raised in the Seventh Circuit’s opinion. Agenda item E-17 may be an order addressing the remanded issues and/or the issues raised by the parties regarding the need for hearing.
M-1: Electronic Tariff Filings (Docket No. RM01-5-000)
In Order No. 714, FERC adopted regulations requiring tariff and tariff-related filings to be made electronically starting April 1, 2010. Agenda item M-3 may be an order addressing this requirement.
G-1: Pipeline Posting Requirements under Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act (RM08-2-001)
On November 20, 2008, FERC issued a final rule implementing its authority under Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 23 to facilitate transparency in markets for the sale or transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce by requiring major noninterstate pipelines and interstate pipelines to post certain data on their websites. Specifically, the rule requires that major noninterstate pipelines post scheduled flow information and information for each receipt and delivery point with a design capacity greater than 15,000 MMBtu per day. The rule also requires interstate natural gas pipelines to post information regarding the provision of no-notice service. Several parties sought rehearing and/or clarification of the final rule. Agenda item G-1 may be an order addressing the requests for rehearing and/or clarification.
G-2: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (RP06- 569-000, RP07-376-000)
On August 31, 2006, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) filed an NGA section 4 rate case that reflected a US$414 million increase in its annual revenue requirement. By order dated September 29, 2006, in Docket No. RP06-569, FERC accepted and suspended Transco’s filing to be effective March 1, 2007, subject to refund. FERC also established a hearing to explore issues including, among other things, cost of service, cost allocation, rate design, rate of return, throughput and depreciation rates. Participants reached a settlement on all but one issue; the settlement was approved on March 7, 2008. In Docket No. RP07-376, Transco filed a request for authorization to sell excess top gas from its Eminence field using the posting and bidding procedures under its tariff. FERC consolidated the issues remaining in the two dockets and set them for hearing. On November 21, 2008, an ALJ issued an initial decision (ID) addressing whether and to what extent replacement costs of Transco for the purchase of storage base gas should be rolled into the rates of the Washington gas storage customers or allocated to Fortis Energy Marketing & Trading GP and South Jersey Resources Group, LLC through incremental rates. The ALJ concluded that it is not just and reasonable for the Washington gas storage customers to be charged higher rates than other customers are charged upon the successors of customers who, upon terminating service, exercised tariff-granted options to purchase base gas at low average historic prices, requiring Transco to replenish that base gas at higher market prices. Several parties filed briefs on and opposing exceptions to the ID. Agenda item G-2 may be an order on the ID.
G-3: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. (RP09-809-000, -001)
On July 1, 2009, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. (Maritimes) filed revised tariff sheets pursuant to NGA section 4 to effectuate reductions in the rates applicable to Maritimes’ various services and to reflect out-of-cycle changes in Maritimes’ Fuel Retainage Quantity. On July 30, 2009, FERC issued an order accepting and suspending Maritimes’ proposed tariff sheets establishing decreased system transportation rates, subject to refund, and accepting and suspending Maritimes’ proposed tariff sheets revising its fuel rate methodology and increasing its fuel charges, subject to refund and the outcome of a technical conference. Several parties sought rehearing and/or clarification of the July 30 order. On September 11, 2009, FERC held the technical conference established in the July 30 order. Several parties filed comments following the technical conference. Agenda item G-3 may be an order addressing the requests for rehearing and/or clarification of the July 30 order and/or the technical conference held on September 11, 2009.
H-1: Fall River Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (P-11879-029)
On August 26, 2009, Symbiotics LLC (Symbiotics), on behalf of Fall River Rural Electric Cooperative Inc. (Fall River), filed a Fish Screen Monitoring Plan pursuant to Article 407 of its license. Fall River’s plan describes how the turbine and canal screens will be evaluated, with the goal being adherence to the physical criteria specified in its license to reduce fish entrainment and provide effective and safe fish passage. On October 29, 2009, FERC issued an order modifying and approving the fish screen monitoring plan pursuant to Article 407 and requiring biological monitoring of the screens. Symbiotics requested rehearing of the October 29 order. Agenda item H-1 may be an order addressing Symbiotics’ request for rehearing.
H-2: Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (P-2197-097)
On September 17, 2009, Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (Alcoa) filed a petition for an order declaring that North Carolina waived its authority under section 401 of the Clean Water Act to issue a water quality certification with respect to the relicensing of the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project. On October 15, 2009, FERC issued an order concluding that North Carolina had not waived its Clean Water Act authority and denying the petition. Alcoa requested rehearing of the October 15 order. Agenda item H-2 may be an order addressing Alcoa’s request for rehearing.
H-3: Northern States Power Company (P-2417-061)
On October 27, 2009, FERC issued a letter order requiring Northern States Power Company (d/b/a Xcel Energy, Inc. (Xcel)), licensee of the Hayward Hydroelectric Project, to file for FERC approval a recreation plan for the Project by May 1, 2010. Xcel sought rehearing of the October 27 letter order, arguing that the requirement that Xcel expend potentially significant resources to provide public access to Bartz’s Bay of Lake Hayward for ice fishermen that use the Lake during the winter is arbitrary and capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, contrary to FERC’s obligation to balance competing resource interests in providing for the comprehensive development of the waterway and thus contrary to the public interest. Agenda item H-3 may be an order addressing Xcel’s request for rehearing of the October 27 letter order.