Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

D.C. Circuit Vacates Revisions to PJM Minimum Offer Price Rule: Finds FERC Exceeded Statutory Authority

By Joseph Williams (US), Michael Yuffee & Ryan Norfolk (US) on July 13, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In a decision issued on July 7, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated revisions to the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”) Minimum Offer Price Rule (“MOPR”) that had been proposed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) in response to a filing submitted by PJM pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”). In relevant part, PJM’s proposal sought to eliminate the existing unit specific review exemption of the MOPR and replace it with two categorical exemptions – the competitive entry exemption and the self-supply exemption. PJM also proposed to extend the MOPR mitigation period from one to three years. PJM’s proposal was the first capacity market proposal to garner the support of over two-thirds of PJM stakeholders. FERC found that the PJM proposal was not just and reasonable and proposed several modifications to resolve the deficiency, including retention of the unit-specific review process (in addition to the new categorical exemptions) and retention of the original one year mitigation period. PJM agreed to FERC’s proposed modifications.

Multiple generation owners petitioned for review of FERC’s orders effectuating the revisions, arguing that FERC exceeded its authority under FPA section 205 by creating a new rate, as opposed to merely accepting or rejecting what PJM proposed. The D.C. Circuit agreed with petitioners, finding that FERC’s proposed revisions constituted an “entirely different rate design” than what PJM proposed or what existed prior to PJM’s proposal. Specifically, FERC’s proposals expanded the availability of MOPR exemptions, when PJM intended to do the exact opposite through its proposal. This, the Court concluded, exceeded FERC’s “passive and reactive” role in reviewing rate filings under FPA section 205. Having found FERC exceeded its statutory authority, the Court vacated FERC’s orders with respect to unit-specific review, the competitive entry exemption, the self-supply exemption and the mitigation period of the MOPR.

While providing clear guidance on the limits of FERC’s authority under FPA section 205, the practical effects of the decision remain uncertain pending the outcome of remand proceedings. It is unclear whether FERC will revert to the prior incarnation, which provides for a unit-specific exemption and a one year mitigation period, or if it may attempt to use authority under FPA section 206 to keep the current regime in place.

Photo of Joseph Williams (US) Joseph Williams (US)
Read more about Joseph Williams (US)Email
Photo of Michael Yuffee Michael Yuffee
Read more about Michael YuffeeEmail
Photo of Ryan Norfolk (US) Ryan Norfolk (US)
Read more about Ryan Norfolk (US)Email
  • Posted in:
    Financial, International
  • Blog:
    Financial services: Regulation tomorrow
  • Organization:
    Norton Rose Fulbright
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • LEX Reception Blog
  • Civil Justice Blog
  • Boston ERISA & Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Stridon News and Insights
  • Taft Class Action & Consumer Insights
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo