federal energy regulatory commission

Today was a big day for the solar power industry at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

In its monthly open meeting, FERC announced two decisions that significantly impact the industry — one involving PURPA and the other related to PJM’s Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR).

First, FERC reversed its Broadview Solar decision issued in

Ameren is dusting off a discriminatory method for interconnection customers to fund network upgrades in the Midcontinent ISO region, using two past victories in support of its campaign. But there are key differences between this dispute and those before it, and FERC should deny Ameren’s latest attempt to breathe life into the Option 1 funding that met its fate years ago.
Continue Reading Ameren Should LOSE the Latest Battle Over Option 1 Network Upgrade Funding in the Midcontinent ISO Region

Interconnection customers:  be on notice.  Your interconnection agreement may not be just a transmission provider service agreement that allows your project to interconnect with the transmission system.  It may also be a rate schedule–your rate schedule–that you must file with FERC or suffer the consequences for violating the Federal Power Act.  

At

Our firm today announced that Jon Wellinghoff, Chair of the Federal Regulatory Commission (FERC), will join Stoel Rives LLP upon completion of his service at FERC. As many of our readers will recall, Jon submitted his resignation to the President on May 28, 2013. No date has been announced for his departure from FERC.

For

An update from Marcus Wood, Jennifer MartinJason Johns:

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) regulations provide that, for purposes of calculating a qualifying facility’s net capacity, generating facilities are considered together as a single qualifying facility if they are located within one mile of each other, use the same energy resource, and are owned by the same persons or their affiliates. In recent years, landowners and energy purchasers have disputed whether the location of generating facilities more than one mile apart is a "safe harbor," ensuring that the facilities will be treated as separate qualifying facilities, or is instead a rebuttable presumption that may be challenged. In its Order Denying Rehearing, issued June 8, 2012 in Docket Nos. EL11-51-001, QF10-649-002, and QF10-687-001, FERC reaffirmed that the one-mile separation standard provides a safe harbor for establishing separate qualifying facilities.Continue Reading FERC Confirms That Its “One-Mile” Rule is a Safe Harbor for Establishing Separate Qualifying Facilities

On January 31, 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) conditionally accepted additional reforms to the California ISO’s Generator Interconnection Procedures (GIP) that significantly change the rules that apply to developers seeking to interconnect power generation facilities in the California ISO’s balancing authority area.

The decision continues the California ISO’s efforts to reform the GIP

A legal update from our colleagues Steve Hall, Dina Dubson and Jason Johns:

On December 7, 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order holding that the Bonneville Power Administration violated Section 211A of the Federal Power Act by curtailing wind energy under BPA’s Environmental Redispatch policy and requiring BPA to file a

FERC Clarifies Qualifying Facility Restrictions in Sale/Resale Transactions

On May 19, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") issued an order in Idaho Wind Partners I, LLC, a docket in which wind farm owners in Idaho petitioned FERC for approval of a unique transaction that would both provide eligible Renewable Energy Credits ("RECs") to a utility