FERC

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has set for hearing a complaint by the Municipal Electric Utilities Association of New York (MEUA) against one of its members (the Town of Massena) and the New York Power Authority (NYPA). The complaint alleges that NYPA improperly agreed to sell low-cost hydroelectric power to an industrial customer, violating the Niagara Redevelopment Act as well as a FERC license assigning statutory preference to municipal utilities (Docket No.

A new policy at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) makes water depth a factor in deciding whether an offshore facility is primarily a gatherer rather than a transporter of natural gas (Docket No. RM96-5-000). The Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires the FERC to regulate transportation and wholesale transactions, but exempts gathering and production. Under the new policy, a facility that operates in depths of 200 meters or more will be considered a gatherer. The FERC hopes to encourage exploration and development of deep water reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. and Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., the interstate natural gas pipeline subsidiaries of The Columbia Gas System, Inc., have a new chief executive officer (CEO), Catherine Good Abbott, as well as plans for an ambitious expansion. The project and the CEO mark the beginning of a new era for a once-troubled pipeline system that recently emerged from bankruptcy.

Consumer advocates, utility chiefs, regulators, and analysts offered conflicting visions of retail competition's future at NASUCA's 1996 Capitol Hill Conference.

The National Association of State Consumer Advocates ( NASUCA) conference, "Restructuring the Electric Industry: What Are the Costs and Benefits to Consumers?," was held on February 29 and March 1 in the Rayburn House Office Building. The event was co-sponsored by Rep.

A few weeks ago I picked up a copy of one of those law firm newsletters, this one published quarterly by Reid & Priest, titled the Utility Telecommunications Advisor.

Filings Against FERC's Pro Forma Tariffs

AS ONE MIGHT EXPECT, THE VARIATIONS REFLECT THE HISTORIC TENSION BETWEEN NATIVE LOAD AND WHOLESALE TRANSACTIONS.

Two power pools (em one existing, the other inchoate (em have announced that they will file tariffs to price electric transmission as the difference in spot prices in the generation and consuming markets.

On May 31, 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued its Statement of Policy in Docket No. PL94-4-000, Pricing Policy for New and Existing Facilities Constructed by Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.1 In that decision, the FERC sought to provide upfront rate certainty, thereby giving pipelines and shippers a firm basis for making decisions on large-scale investments.

But is that objective realistic?

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has declined jurisdiction in a dispute between Montana Power Co. and Puget Sound Power & Light Co. over a firm purchased-power contract and the seller's obligation to exert "best efforts" to secure necessary firm contractual rights to transmission service to complete the firm power transaction. The FERC prefers that the matter be heard in the federal district court in Montana, where related litigation is already pending.

Speaking at the American Gas Association's Natural Gas Roundtable in Washington, DC, on February 13, FERC Commissioner William L. Massey called on parties within the natural gas industry to resolve the problem of decontracting (capacity turnback) on natural gas interstate pipelines. Nevertheless, he offered a bit of help from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

For its part, said Massey, the FERC will remain flexible, as shown by its order allowing Natural Gas Pipeline Co.