Category: Energy Law

Possible Investigation of Gas Price Hikes on the Horizon

The National Law Review recently featured an article, Possible Investigation of Gas Price Hikes on the Horizon, written by Roscoe C. Howard, Jr. and Leasa Woods Anderson of Andrews Kurth LLP:

Andrews Kurth

In May 2011, the Corporate Compliance, Investigations and Defense Group of Andrews Kurth issued an alert regarding the formation of the Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group (Working Group). The Working Group includes the Department of Justice, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy. The Working Group was formed as a subcommittee of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which was created to address financial crimes. As stated in the prior alert, this collection of state and federal agencies is charged with monitoring the oil and gas markets for potential violations of the law.

On November 27, 2012, following the circulation of a report from McCullough Research regarding oil production at some of the West Coast oil refineries, a group of six Senators sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder calling for the Working Group to conduct an investigation into whether market manipulation or false reporting by oil refineries contributed to a spike in gas prices on the West Coast earlier this year.

The letter, sent by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), seeks a “refinery-by-refinery level probe.” The Senators cite “[a] McCullough Research report released Nov. 15th in conjunction with a California State Senate hearing on California gas prices [which] revealed information that showed that the price spikes in May and October occurred while crude oil prices were declining, inventories were increasing, and possibly in conjunction with misleading market-making information.”

Based on the McCullough Research report, the Senators conclude that “[a]nomalous, uncompetitive market dynamics may have forced West Coast drivers to pay $1.3 billion more at the pump during the May 2012 price spike.” They seek the intervention of the Working Group to confirm the findings of the McCullough Research report which would include the issuance of federal subpoenas for records of the oil and gas companies involved.

As previously reported, the Working Group has been tasked with identifying markets, regions or individuals that should be a focus of law enforcement or consumer protection agency investigations. The Senators’ letter is a direct call for “the Working Group to use every existing authority and regulation to identify, stop, and prosecute any and all instances of false reporting, manipulation, or anticompetitive behavior in the West Coast wholesale petroleum markets.”

As we advised in May 2011, those operating in the oil and gas industries must understand that a government microscope is aimed at their work. Compliance officers and general counsel may want to make sure that their compliance programs are in place and functioning as intended, as well as ensuring that their employees understand the importance of those programs and communicate with management when something seems awry. Since the Working Group has such a broad mandate in a very specific market, regular training programs for employees that remind them of the laws that affect their business are in order.

Click here to view the May 2011 alert.

Click here to view the West Coast Senators’ letter to Eric Holder.

© 2012 Andrews Kurth LLP

Big Brother Gets Better Glasses: FERC Enhances Its Market Surveillance Tools

In a concerted effort to enhance its ability to monitor energy markets for possible anti-competitive or manipulative conduct, FERC has undertaken a number of separate initiatives to strengthen its market surveillance capabilities over electric power and natural gas markets.  Among the areas of focus, FERC has been especially keen on obtaining data and market information on a real-time, or near real-time, basis, which is in contrast to FERC’s traditional collection of data through quarterly or annual reports submitted well after-the-fact.  FERC has also been intent on gathering data outside of organized wholesale electric markets.

These initiatives include:

  • On February 16, 2012, FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff announced the creation of a new Division of Analytics and Surveillance to the Office of Enforcement.  Described by the Chairman as staffed with “geeks and wonks”, the Division is intended to provide continuous, real-time market surveillance and data analysis of physical gas and electric power markets and of related financial products.  The Division also is intended to develop and implement surveillance tools to detect potential market manipulation, anticompetitive behavior, and other anomalous activity.
  • Beginning in August 2012, FERC enacted a rule to require Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO) to electronically deliver to FERC non-public data on a rolling basis, seven days after creation.  Specifically, FERC requires RTOs and ISOs to provide: market participant names and pricing points; virtual offers and bids; capacity market offers, awards, and prices; marginal cost estimates; financial transmission rights, or FTR, data; pricing data for interchange transactions; supply offers and demand bids; energy and ancillary services awards; resource output; day-ahead generation and load shift factors associated with constraints; internal bilateral contracts; and uplift charges and credits.  FERC allowed a phased implementation, with only certain data required August 2012, leading up to full implementation by February 2013.  This data collection is intended to supplement ongoing market monitoring efforts by the RTOs’ and ISOs’ market monitors.
  • FERC has also taken efforts to enhance its more traditional forms of reporting, including extending FERC’s Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) requirements to non-public utility entities that make sales above a 4,000,000 MWh threshold under Section 220 of the Federal Power Act (FPA).  These non-public utility entities—which generally consist of governmentally-owned entities, such as federal power marketing administrations, municipal utilities, public utility districts, and coops—have traditionally been exempt from FERC’s EQR filing requirements.  In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress granted FERC increased authority over these entities in order to improve market transparency, as non-public utility entities represent large portions of the market, particularly in areas of the country outside of organized markets.  In the same order, FERC also increased the amount of data required of all EQR filers to include individual trade dates, whether a transaction was reported to an index publisher, the broker or exchange used for a transaction, and e-Tag IDs associated with individual transactions.  In a separate order issued in February 2012, FERC also indicated it will consider requiring EQR filers to report electric “buy-sell” transactions, termed by FERC as “simultaneous exchanges”.
  • FERC is also in the process of considering a rule that proposes to require theNorth American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to provide FERC staff with access to the complete set of non-public e-Tag data.  (Notably, NERCresponded to the Commission’s proposal by noting that other entities, and not NERC, maintained the desired e-Tag information.)  When viewed in conjunction with the new requirement to report e-Tag IDs in the EQRs, it is clear that FERC intends to associate the broader set of e-Tag data with parties’ transaction reports in an effort to understand how power is transacted and scheduled.
  • Finally, on October 15, 2012, FERC Staff issued a set of proposed metrics that would compare the performance of market performance in areas outside of organized wholesale electric markets with performance in organized markets.  As part of this effort, FERC Staff issued a new report, FERC-922, that would collect information from utilities outside of organized markets.  Requested information includes price data and information relating to reliability, transmission planning, requests for service, and system capacity.  Staff stated it will use this information to help develop a common set of metrics for both RTO/ISO markets and non-RTO/ISO markets, and for evaluating market performance thereafter.  FERC Staff noted that it could not require many non-public utility entities to provide such information but requested such entities to comply as part of “a voluntary and collaborative process”.

Taken as a whole, these efforts show an agency intent on gaining a deeper and more granular perspective on energy markets and a better understanding of how those markets function day-to-day.

© 2012 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

Another Hurdle for GHG Suits as Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court Ruling in Kivalina v. ExxonMobil

The National Law Review recently featured an article by Xiaorong Jajah Wu and Jane E. Montgomery of Schiff Hardin LLP regarding GHG Suits:

 

In a unanimous decision last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal common law public nuisance claims regarding domestic greenhouse gas emissions have been displaced by the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) action the CAA authorizes. Native Vill. of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 09-17490, 2012 WL 4215921 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2012).

On February 28, 2008, the Village sued ExxonMobil Corporation in federal court along with eight other oil companies, fourteen power companies, and one coal company. The suit was based on, among other things, the federal common law theory of public nuisance. The Village alleged that the companies named in the suit are substantial contributors to global warming because of their high volume of greenhouse gas emissions, and that the Village was directly harmed by global warming because the melting of sea ice exposed the Village to erosive coastal storms. The Village sought monetary damages for the defendants’ contributions to global warming. The district court dismissed the case, holding that (1) the political question doctrine precluded judicial consideration of the Village’s federal public nuisance claims and (2) the Village lacked standing under Article III. Native Vill. of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 663 F. Supp. 2d 863, 868 (N.D. Cal. 2009).

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on the grounds that the Village had failed to satisfy the threshold question of whether or not legislative action has displaced the theory of public nuisance under federal common law. The court stated that “[i]f Congress has addressed a federal issue by statute, then there is no gap for federal common law to fill.” Relying heavily on the recent Supreme Court ruling in American Electric Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527 (2011), the court held that, because the CAA already “provides a means to seek limits on emissions of carbon dioxide from domestic power plants . . . [the CAA and] the EPA actions it authorizes displace any federal common law right” the Village might have to seek damages based on federal common law nuisance. The Ninth Circuit also refused to allow the absence of a damages remedy under the CAA in this case to revive the federal common law damages action. In its decision, the appeals court declined to discuss the issues of political question or standing. The ruling poses another hurdle for greenhouse gas suits based on the theory of public nuisance. At least in the Ninth Circuit, federal common law suits based on transboundary pollution claims against greenhouse gas emitters are now foreclosed. Further, the decision provides additional backing to USEPA to implement the suite of rules regulating GHG emissions pursuant to the CAA.

While the Ninth Circuit backed USEPA’s authority to address global warming through the CAA, the Republican-controlled House passed a deregulatory bill on the same day titled “Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012” (H.R. 3409). The proposed bill would prevent USEPA from enforcing its recent GHG regulations and require the agency to consider the costs and economic impacts of certain regulations. However, the future of the bill is uncertain because the Obama administration has issued a veto threat (182 DEN A-11, 9/20/12), and it is unlikely to move through the Democratic-controlled Senate. Future actions to address these issues are unlikely until after the November elections. Text of the Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012 (H.R. 3409) is available here

Details on each of the amendments to the bill are available here and by clicking on “Amendments” tab.

© 2012 Schiff Hardin LLP

$7B in Contracting Opportunities for Renewable Energy Projects

Recently The National Law Review published an article regarding Renewable Energy Projects written by Stephen E. Ruscus, Kenneth M. Kulak, and Wayne W. Song of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP:

 

U.S. Army issues an RFP to secure locally generated renewable and alternative energy.

On August 7, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued its long-awaited request for proposal (RFP) to procure up to $7 billion worth of locally generated renewable and alternative energy through power purchase agreements and other contractual equivalents. The RFP solicits contractors that can develop, finance, design, build, operate, own, and maintain solar, wind, biomass, or geothermal power generation facilities under energy purchase contracts of up to 30 years.

The RFP calls for the award of multiple indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts with a base period of three years and seven one-year options (total 10 years). These contracts do not guarantee work and are not project specific. Rather, each contract serves as a “license to hunt,” and the Army intends to award such contracts to all qualified offerors. Individual task orders for specific projects will be issued after qualified contract holders are given a fair opportunity to be considered. To satisfy this requirement, the Army must issue a notice of the task order containing a clear statement of its requirements and allow for a reasonable response period. The winner of each task order will be awarded the work described in the task order’s statement of work.

Project locations are not identified in the RFP but will be specified in subsequent individual task orders. The locations may include private land or installations under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense located within the continental United States. Renewable energy facilities also may be located on any properties available for use by the contractor that are in the proximity of the location of the federal property for which the services will be provided.

The RFP divides projects into three categories: (1) For projects greater than 12 MW, task order competition will be unrestricted by contractor size; (2) for projects 4 MW up to 12 MW, the contracting officer will consider reserving the task order for small businesses; and (3) for projects less than 4 MW, the task order will be reserved for small businesses. Under the terms of the RFP, a firm is considered small if it is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million MWh.

The RFP and an accompanying “frequently asked questions” (FAQ) document raise several important issues for contractor qualifications and for projects to be constructed under future task orders:

  • The RFP requires all offerors to submit Small Business Participation Plans. It is the Army’s goal to have 50% of the total contract value go to small businesses.
  • The RFP requires contractors to offer a maximum price per kWh, project-specific variables notwithstanding. The figure should be based on an offeror’s estimate of the total cost for development, construction, operation, and maintenance of the renewable energy production facility at a location and size that is “suitable, but not ideal for the technology proposed.” The figure is intended to operate as a ceiling price, and a contractor will not be required to submit a task order proposal on a project exceeding its ceiling price.
  • The RFP includes a most-favored-customer provision stating that, as a general rule, the government will require that its energy unit price under a task order remain equal to or lower than the unit price offered to any other customer with a contract containing substantially similar terms and conditions for power generated at the renewable energy facility or facilities.
  • The RFP includes a government contract clause requiring certifications regarding the country of origin of photovoltaic devices; requiring proof, at certain total estimated values, of a specified price differential between foreign and domestic devices; and prohibiting, at other total estimated values, consideration of offers utilizing photovoltaic devices from certain countries. Other provisions incorporated in many government contracts will also apply (e.g., compliance with Buy American Act and Davis-Bacon Act labor requirements).
  • The RFP FAQ addresses the question of termination liability in the event the government terminates a particular power purchase agreement in accordance with a required Termination for Convenience Clause. Specifically, the FAQ acknowledges contractor concerns and contemplates inclusion, in task orders, of a negotiated floor and ceiling for termination charges as well as additional negotiable elements.
  • The RFP also anticipates issues relating to third-party financing through special purpose entities. It suggests these issues can be addressed through government contract novation of the underlying IDIQ contract to isolate a project for financing purposes and through reissuance of a separate IDIQ contract to the original awardee to maintain that contractor in the contract pool.

Comments on the final RFP may be submitted by August 24, 2012; the Army intends to hold a pre-proposal conference at a date to be announced (tentatively in Chicago). The deadline for submission of proposals in response to the RFP is October 5, 2012.[1]

[1]. The RFP, Attachment A – Table of Max Unit Price Rates, Amendment 1, and FAQs can be accessed at here.

Copyright © 2012 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Federal Authorities Obtain First-Ever Criminal Conviction Regarding Fraudulent Generation of Renewable Fuel Credits

An article by Susan M. Cooke and Bethany K. Hatef of McDermott Will & Emery regarding Renewal Fuel Credits appeared in The National Law Review:

 

 

On June 25, 2012, a federal jury in Maryland found the owner of a fraudulent clean energy production company guilty of wire fraud, money laundering and violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Rodney Hailey, the owner of Clean Green Fuels, LLC, was convicted of eight counts of wire fraud, 32 counts of money laundering and two counts of CAA violations in connection with his sale of fraudulent biodiesel renewable fuel credits. Mr. Hailey’s sentencing is scheduled for October 11, 2012. He faces imprisonment of up to 20 years for each wire fraud conviction; up to 10 years for each money laundering conviction; and up to two years for each CAA violation. While Mr. Hailey’s case marks the first criminal prosecution concerning the fraudulent generation of such renewable fuel credits, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently investigating other cases where similar enforcement action may be taken.

As required by the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, EPA each year establishes the minimum volume of renewable fuel (Renewable Volume Obligation) to be produced or imported by refiners, importers, and most blenders of nonrenewable transportation fuel (obligated parties). Under EPA’s regulations which are set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 80, Subparts K and M, a Renewable Identification Number (RIN) is assigned to each volume of renewable fuel that is produced, and the RIN is registered with EPA. After the associated fuel is obtained by an obligated party or blended into motor vehicle fuel, the RIN can be traded as a renewable fuel credit, either bilaterally or in private organized markets, and all transfers must be tracked on a system established by EPA and used to meet an obligated party’s Renewable Volume Obligation.

From March 2009 to December 2010, Clean Green Fuels, sold more than 32 million fraudulent RINs representing over 23 million gallons of renewable biodiesel fuel. In 2010, EPA received a complaint that Mr. Hailey’s company was selling fraudulent RINs. This sparked an investigation by EPA’s Air Enforcement Division in July 2010, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland filed charges against Mr. Hailey in October 2011 with respect to his fraudulent sale of RINs and his registration of Clean Green Fuels with EPA as a biodiesel producer when that company never produced any fuel.

In addition to its criminal prosecution of Mr. Hailey, EPA issued Notices of Violation to gasoline and diesel refiners, blenders, and importers that utilized Clean Green Fuels RINs to demonstrate compliance with their Renewable Fuel Obligations. EPA maintains that entities submitting false RINs for compliance purposes are subject to enforcement, regardless of whether they knew or had reason to know that the RINs were invalid. During April 2012, EPA settled with 28 of those parties, requiring them to replace the fraudulent RINs with valid RINs and to pay civil penalties.

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

Federal Court Approves Plan to Drill Off Alaska’s North Shore

GT Law

On May 25, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued adecision upholding theBureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) approval of Shell Oil Company’s plan for exploratory drilling in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea. Two Alaskan Inupiat groups and ten environmental groups, including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, brought the appeal challenging BOEM’s August 2011 approval of the drilling plans. The environmental groups claimed that BOEM erred in approving the plan because (1) the plan did not adequately inform BOEM about its oil spill response plan, and (2) the seven-paragraph description of the well-capping stack and the containment systems was incomplete. However, the court deferred to BOEM’s technical expertise in evaluating the adequacy of the oil spill response plan and found that BOEM had complied with applicable statutes and regulations in approving the plan.

The court’s deference to BOEM’s approval of well-capping technology is significant because it opens a gateway through which other drilling efforts in the Arctic can get approval. Well-capping, the same technology that BP used in containing the Deepwater Horizon spill, had never before been approved for use in Alaska or in Arctic drilling conditions. The opinion also marks a victory for Shell, which has been trying to get approval for the exploratory drilling project since 2005, when Shell purchased a lease portion in Alaska’s continental shelf from the Minerals Management Service.

Other appeals are still pending in the Ninth Circuit, including one challenging the approval of federal air quality permits for the project. Unless that litigation disrupts the project, the Chukchi Sea drilling operations will commence early next month.

From Chelsae Johansen, summer associate, of GT Tampa:

©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Dept of Energy Liable for $150 Million Because It Has Not Built a Nuclear Waste Facility

GT Law

On May 18, in Yankee Atomic Elec Co. v. United States, the Federal Circuit affirmed a damages judgment of $142.6 million, and added $17.0 million to the judgment by granting a cross-appeal, in a breach of contract action against the government arising from the Department of Energy’s failure to remove spent nuclear fuel from three reactor sites in New England.  The decision came in three consolidated cases from among the 55 that have been filed in the Court of Federal Claims as a result of DOE’s breach of contracts it has with all nuclear utility companies under which the agency was required to begin removing spent fuel from reactor sites in 1998.  Due to chronic delays with the DOE program, including controversy over the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada, repository DOE has never commenced any performance.  The utilities have therefore been required to license and construct on-site storage facilities for the nuclear waste, the substantial cost of which constitutes the bulk of the damages claimed in the breach of contract actions.

Beginning in 2004 the government began settling some of these contract cases, and in recent years the pace of settlements has increased following utility victories on most contested issues.  Settlements to date are estimated to exceed $2 billion, and only about 20 of the contract cases remain pending.  However, separate litigation has arisen in the D.C. Circuit over DOE’s proposal to formally cancel work on the Yucca Mountain repository, and also seeking to relieve the utilities of the obligation to pay ongoing fees to DOE under the spent fuel contracts, fees that collectively cost the industry about $750 million per year.

Yankee Atomic was the first of these spent fuel damages cases filed, in 1998, and GT lawyers have represented Yankee Atomic as well as the other two companies involved in the May 18 decision, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company and Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, throughout the litigation, which has involved two trials and three appeals.

For the Legal Times of Washington’s take on this opinion, click here.

©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP

FERC Rules on Several Core Reliability Compliance Issues: New Orders Address Cybersecurity, Registration, and Contingency Planning

The National Law Review published an article recently by Stephen M. Spina, J. Daniel Skees, and John D. McGrane of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP regarding New FERC Rules on Reliability Compliance:

At FERC’s open meeting on April 19, 2012, FERC approved several orders addressing core aspects of Reliability Standards compliance, including cybersecurity Reliability Standards, compliance registration, and contingency planning issues. The newly approved cybsersecurity Reliability Standards significantly increase the scope of facilities subject to those requirements, the compliance registration decisions clarify the jurisdictional boundary between distribution and transmission facilities, and the planning orders represent a rejection of NERC’s approach to planning for firm load loss following a single contingency.

Cybersecurity: FERC Approves Version 4 CIP Reliability Standards

In Order No. 761, FERC approved Version 4 of the Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards. Under Version 4, the risk-based assessment methodology previously used to identify the Critical Assets that must be protected under the CIP Reliability Standards is replaced with a list of “bright-line” criteria for identifying Critical Assets, contained in Attachment 1 to CIP-002-4. These criteria, FERC concluded, “will offer an increase in the overall protection for bulk electric system components that clearly require protection, including control centers.” In the order, FERC established a deadline of March 31, 2013, for NERC to submit the Version 5 CIP Reliability Standards, which will address the remaining directives from Order No. 706, in which FERC approved the original CIP Reliability Standards. The project site for the Version 5 CIP Reliability Standards is located online.

Compliance Registration: FERC Addresses Distribution/Transmission Distinction

In City of Holland, 139 FERC ¶ 61, 055 (2012), FERC rejected the City of Holland, Michigan, Board of Public Works’ appeal of NERC’s decision to register the City of Holland as a Transmission Owner and Transmission Operator. In reaching this decision, FERC rejected the City of Holland’s assertion that its facilities are distribution facilities, and therefore not part of the definition of “Bulk Electric System” and not subject to registration. FERC explained that the City of Holland’s facilities perform a transmission function, transporting power from the City of Holland’s generation facilities or importing power from other sources over high-voltage lines before stepping the voltage down for distribution to end users. In reaching this decision, FERC also thought it relevant that the facilities at issue do not serve load from a single transmission source, can experience bi-directional flows, and are above the voltage level generally considered distribution voltage.

Commissioner Cheryl A. LaFleur dissented on the grounds that this order depends on the fundamental, yet unsettled question of what facilities are considered “local distribution” under Section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and therefore outside of FERC’s jurisdiction. As explained in Commissioner LaFleur’s dissent, FERC has in the past identified the criteria for identifying local distribution facilities under Section 201(b) of the FPA, which uses language identical to Section 215, but FERC chose not to apply the Section 201(b) criteria in addressing the City of Holland’s appeal. Commissioner LaFleur asserted that if FERC believes that Congress intended to create different classes of local distribution facilities, FERC has the “burden of demonstrating that this is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.”

In U.S. Department of Energy, Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, 139 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2012), FERC granted the Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office’s appeal of its registration as a Load-Serving Entity (LSE). FERC had previously remanded this registration, and in ruling on NERC’s subsequent decision upholding the registration, concluded that NERC had failed to support registration as an LSE because NERC had not shown that the lessees and contractors working at the Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office are separate end-use customers to whom the Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office provides electricity. FERC explained that the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation, which sells to the Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office under a state retail tariff, is the appropriate LSE.

Contingency Planning: FERC Demands Stringent Criteria for Planned Load Loss Following a Single Contingency

In Order No. 762, FERC rejected NERC’s proposed revisions to “Note b” in TPL-002-0b, which explains when a Transmission Planner or Planning Authority can plan for the interruption of firm load to meet system reliability requirements following a single contingency. Under NERC’s proposal, these entities could plan for load shedding following a single contingency so long as they documented such planning and considered alternative solutions in an open and transparent stakeholder process. FERC concluded that the proposal failed to satisfy FERC’s earlier directives on this issue and did not present an “equally effective and efficient alternative.” According to FERC, the proposed Note b process “is vague, potentially unenforceable and may lack safeguards to produce consistent results.” The parameters for the proposed stakeholder process, FERC concluded, do not provide a meaningful limitation on the ability to curtail firm load following a single contingency. Furthermore, the conditions under which such interruptions are appropriate remain undefined, threatening the basic system performance objectives of the NERC Transmission Planning Reliability Standards, risking system reliability.

In Transmission Planning Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 139 FERC ¶ 61,059 (2012), FERC proposed to remand NERC’s proposal to combine the four current Transmission Planning Reliability Standards into a single new standard, TPL-001-2. According to FERC, footnote 12 to Table 1 in this proposed standard, which governs planning for the interruption of firm load following a single contingency, presents the same concerns as the Note b issues that led FERC to reject a similar proposal in Order No. 762 (described above). This footnote, which only requires a documented plan developed through an open and transparent stakeholder process that considers alternatives, does not define the parameters governing the decision to plan for the loss of firm load following a single contingency. While FERC noted several improvements in the standard, because of concerns with footnote 12, FERC proposed to find that TPL-001-2 does not meet the statutory criteria for approval. Comments will be due 60 days after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published in the Federal Register. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FERC requested comments on several transmission planning issues in addition to the core concern regarding planned load curtailments.

Copyright © 2012 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

2012 Young Professionals in Energy International Summit

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information on the 2012 Young Professionals in Energy International Summit:

2012 YOUNG PROFESSIONALS IN ENERGY INTERNATIONAL SUMMIT

April 23-25, 2012
Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino
Las Vegas, Nevada

About the YPE:

Young Professionals in Energy (“YPE”) is the first and only interdisciplinary networking and volunteer organization for people in the global energy industry – a place where bankers can connect with engineers, accountants with geologists and so on. Our mission is to provide a forum for knowledge sharing and camaraderie among future leaders of the energy industry.

The event will feature panel discussions and presentations by YPE members from around the world on such vital energy issues as the world oil supply, shale, renewable energy, career issues and funding new energy projects.

Confirmed speakers include YPE members from the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. the India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, the Nevada Institute for Renewable Energy Commercialization, Pemex, the University of Southern California and the U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

Highlighting the three-day conference is a keynote speech by Daniel Yergin, author of the best-selling “The Quest: Energy, Security and the Remaking of the Modern World (www.danielyergin.com).

2012 Young Professionals in Energy International Summit

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information on the 2012 Young Professionals in Energy International Summit:

2012 YOUNG PROFESSIONALS IN ENERGY INTERNATIONAL SUMMIT

April 23-25, 2012
Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino
Las Vegas, Nevada

About the YPE:

Young Professionals in Energy (“YPE”) is the first and only interdisciplinary networking and volunteer organization for people in the global energy industry – a place where bankers can connect with engineers, accountants with geologists and so on. Our mission is to provide a forum for knowledge sharing and camaraderie among future leaders of the energy industry.

The event will feature panel discussions and presentations by YPE members from around the world on such vital energy issues as the world oil supply, shale, renewable energy, career issues and funding new energy projects.

Confirmed speakers include YPE members from the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. the India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, the Nevada Institute for Renewable Energy Commercialization, Pemex, the University of Southern California and the U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

Highlighting the three-day conference is a keynote speech by Daniel Yergin, author of the best-selling “The Quest: Energy, Security and the Remaking of the Modern World (www.danielyergin.com).