FERC, CFTC, and State Energy Law Developments

The May 16 Order on Rehearing affirms FERC’s jurisdictional authority, and refuses calls for state opt-outs.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued Order No. 841 early last year, a final rule amending FERC’s regulations to facilitate participation of electric storage resources in the capacity, energy, and ancillary service markets operated by regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs). Several entities have since challenged key aspects of the final rule, urging the Commission on rehearing to reverse course or modify its approach on a number of issues. On May 16, the Commission issued Order No. 841-A, denying those requests for rehearing, thereby upholding the initial rulemaking while providing some additional clarification.

FERC issued an order on May 16 rescinding its 2009 policy[1] of issuing Notices of Alleged Violations (NAVs) after the subject of an investigation is given an opportunity to respond to FERC Enforcement Staff’s preliminary findings (the NAV Policy).[2] NAVs typically identify FERC’s targets (by name), and set forth abbreviated information concerning the subject matter of FERC’s enforcement attention, the time frame, and the particular statutes relevant to the alleged violations. Since FERC began implementing the NAV Policy in 2011, it has been monitoring its implementation and has now determined that the potential adverse consequences that NAVs pose for the subjects of FERC investigations are no longer justified in light of the limited transparency that NAVs provide.

A few years after FERC received enhanced enforcement authority in 2005, it instituted the NAV Policy to increase the transparency of the nonpublic investigations that its Staff conducts under Part 1b of FERC’s regulations. When it issued the NAV Order, FERC explained that issuing the NAVs after the preliminary findings stage balances “the need to protect the subject’s confidentiality in the early stages of an investigation with the public interest of promoting additional transparency during investigations.”[3] FERC has since determined that NAVs provide only limited guidance and information to market participants and that the various orders on enforcement matters and the reports and white papers its Staff issues are more informative and provide more transparency.

FERC Staff issued a report on March 29 on Commission-led critical infrastructure protection (CIP) reliability audits completed for fiscal years 2016 through 2018. The report provides lessons learned from those audits, as well as voluntary recommendations on cybersecurity practices to enhance the protection of electric infrastructure from cyberattacks. Even though many of these recommendations go beyond what is necessary for compliance with the mandatory CIP reliability standards, FERC is likely to view implementation of these recommendations as evidence of a strong cybersecurity culture that proactively addresses best cybersecurity practices and evolving threats. That can, in turn, have positive ramifications for utilities undergoing cybersecurity reviews by FERC, NERC, or the Regional Entities.

The US Supreme Court has denied a petition for certiorari filed by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, which challenged a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concerning Pennsylvania’s water quality certification for Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company LLC’s (Transco’s) Atlantic Sunrise Project. The project expands Transco’s interstate pipeline network in Pennsylvania and on the East Coast. The Supreme Court’s April 29 denial comes as another success for the project, which has been defending against several challenges, first at the agency level and now at the appellate level, since Atlantic Sunrise first filed its FERC application to construct and operate the expansion facilities in March 2015.

A recent policy statement from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) instructs departments and agencies—including independent agencies like FERC—to submit “guidance documents, general statements of policy, and interpretive rules” to the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for prepublication review. It also establishes guidelines for the OIRA to apply to properly classify regulatory actions and determine whether they are “major” rules for purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). This major determination process will take full effect on May 11, 2019.

Electric power generation and sale customarily fall within the scope of FERC jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act, as amended, as do generator investment and ownership. Qualifying small power production facilities (Small Power QFs) of no larger than 20 MW (net AC) are usually exempt from FERC regulation of mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, power sale rates, and related regulation under the Public Utility Holding Company Act. Small Power QFs are also normally exempt from state utility commission regulation of corporate, financial, and power sales rate matters. These Small Power QF regulatory exemptions are widely viewed as helpful and appropriate by industry stakeholders ranging from generation investors to traditional franchised utilities, and residential and commercial generation users.

FERC issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on March 21 seeking stakeholder comment on the scope and implementation of its electric transmission infrastructure development incentives regulations and policy. The NOI seeks answers to whether and how FERC should update its rules and policies in this area through more than 100 questions organized into four broad categories:

  • FERC’s incentive policies and how it should approach evaluating applicants’ requests for transmission development incentives, including its Return on Equity (ROE) adder policy
  • What expected benefits or project characteristics warrant incentives, including whether the Commission should consider reliability benefits, economic efficiency benefits, security, or resilience in that determination
  • Whether existing incentives, including the ROE adder, remain relevant and appropriate today
  • Whether particular types of infrastructure development incentives should automatically sunset, and under what certain circumstances that should happen

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) appears to be inching closer toward a resolution on grid operators’ proposals to facilitate electric storage participation in organized capacity, energy, and ancillary service markets. On April 1, FERC’s Office of Energy Market Regulation (Staff) directed each of the Independent System Operators (ISOs) and Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) that submitted compliance filings in response to FERC’s Order No. 841 to submit additional information on the mechanics of their proposed energy storage market rules. Those latest actions by Staff break FERC’s recent silence on the grid operators’ proposals, which were submitted to the Commission over four months ago and which must be implemented as early as December 2019.

Although tailored to each ISO’s and RTO’s proposal, Staff’s requests were largely centered on the same general areas and directed the ISOs and RTOs to further explain how the mechanics of their proposed storage participation models meet compliance with Order No. 841. For example, among other things, Staff sought more information on how the ISOs and RTOs will:

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on March 7 to approve a revised reliability standard for electric utilities aimed at enhancing existing cybersecurity incident reporting. The proposed CIP-008-6 reliability standard would expand the scope of the type of assets subject to incident reporting and the categories of incidents affecting those systems that must be reported. If FERC approves the standard as proposed, compliance will require more comprehensive internal controls for identifying, reviewing, and reporting cyber incidents affecting electric utilities.

Concurring and dissenting statements issued with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) February 21 order granting construction and operating authorization for a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal highlight the increased scrutiny that gas construction projects are receiving concerning their potential effects on climate change. Despite misgivings from some Commissioners, FERC issued a 3-1 decision conditionally authorizing the construction and operation of the Calcasieu Pass Terminal and TransCameron Pipeline Project (Project), an LNG export terminal and an associated lateral pipeline project that will be located along the Calcasieu Ship Channel in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The decision found that FERC Staff’s quantitative and qualitative assessments of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacting the climate on a regional and global scale were sufficient.[1] However, even if FERC would like to use the decision as a blueprint to greenlight similarly stalled or pending terminal construction and expansion projects, it is unclear whether appellate courts might have the appetite to agree in analogous cases.