1 NOS , In the Supreme Court of the United States W. KEVIN HUGHES, et al., Petitioners, v. TALEN ENERGY MARKETING, LLC (F/K/A PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC), et al., Respondents. CPV MARYLAND, LLC, v. Petitioner, TALEN ENERGY MARKETING, LLC (F/K/A PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC), et al., Respondents. On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE MONITORING ANALYTICS, LLC, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE INDEPENDENT MARKET MONITOR FOR PJM, IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS Jeffrey W. Mayes Counsel of Record Joseph E. Bowring Monitoring Analytics, LLC 2621 Van Buren Avenue, Suite 160 Eagleville, Pennsylvania (610) Counsel for Amicus Curiae Becker Gallagher Cincinnati, OH Washington, D.C
2 i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit properly affirmed a district court holding that a Maryland program to subsidize the participation of a new power plant in the federal wholesale energy market was preempted by the Federal Power Act.
3 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT... 3 ARGUMENT... 4 CONCLUSION... 14
4 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al., 96 FERC 61,061 (2001)... 1 STATUTES 18 C.F.R (g) C.F.R (g)(3)(ii) C.F.R (g)(3)(vi) C.F.R (k)(6)... 2 Md. Code. Pub. Utils , et seq., (c)(4)(ii)... 7 RULES Sup. Ct. Rule 37.2(a)... 1 Sup. Ct. Rule OTHER AUTHORITIES Comments of the Independent Market Monitor for PJM, Maryland PSC Case No (Jan. 28, 2011) available at < md.us/intranet/casenum/newindex3_vopen File.cfm?ServerFilePath=C:\Casenum\ \9214\63.pdf>... 10
5 1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 1 Monitoring Analytics, LLC, serves as the Independent Market Monitor for PJM ( Market Monitor ), and appears here solely in its capacity as the Market Monitor. 2 Consistent with its unique role, the Market Monitor here seeks to protect and promote the public interest in and federal policy for competitionbased regulation. The organized wholesale electricity market at issue in this case is operated by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., which has been approved as a Regional Transmission Organization ( RTO ) by the FERC. 3 Consistent with its competition-based regulatory initiative, FERC requires an RTO to operate a centralized wholesale electricity market independently from market participants. FERC requires RTOs to have a market monitor that is 1 In accordance with U.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 37.2(a), 28 U.S.C.A., all parties have provided blanket consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, which the Clerk of the Court has noted on the docket. Pursuant to U.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 37.6, 28 U.S.C.A., Monitoring Analytics, LLC states the following: (1) Monitoring Analytics, LLC counsel authored this brief; (2) no counsel for a party to the decision below, or other entity, authored this brief in whole or in part; and (3) no person or entity other than Monitoring Analytics, LLC made a financial contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. 2 Monitoring Analytics, LLC, is solely owned by Dr. Joseph E. Bowring. Dr. Bowring is the President of Monitoring Analytics and the Independent Market Monitor for PJM. 3 See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al., 96 FERC 61,061 (2001).
6 2 independent from market participants and from the RTO. 4 The core functions of the Market Monitor are to evaluate and review proposed market rules, tariff provisions and market design elements; review and report on the performance of the wholesale markets; and identify and notify the FERC of participant or RTO behavior that requires investigation. 5 The Market Monitor is charged to protect the public interest in competitive wholesale electricity markets. 6 The Market Monitor s purpose is to promote efficient wholesale markets and to help realize the FERC s goal to regulate electricity markets through competition. 7 A priority concern of the Market Monitor is to detect, deter and prevent the exercise of market power in PJM markets. 8 The Market Monitor is subject to a strict code of ethics prohibiting conflicts of interests or engagements with market participants and others that could 4 See 18 C.F.R (k)(6). 5 See 18 C.F.R (g)(3)(ii). 6 See PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff ( OATT ) Attachment M ( Pet. App. 78a); see also, 18 C.F.R (g). 7 Id. 8 Id.
7 3 interfere with the Market Monitor s independence and objectivity. 9 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT By design, the Maryland Public Service Commission s Generation Order procures new capacity resources outside of the centralized wholesale capacity market operated by PJM in the region including Maryland. 10 By requiring that such resources be offered into the PJM market so as to guarantee that they clear the centralized markets, the RFP operates to suppress prices below levels needed to sustain competitive investment by other generation owners and below levels that are just and reasonable under the prevailing federal wholesale regulatory scheme. 11 The RFP thus interferes with and undermines federal policies intended to establish competitive wholesale electricity markets and the FERC s reliance on such markets to regulate prices under the Federal Power Act. 12 Accordingly, the RFP is field and conflicts preempted. 13 Maryland could have achieved its objectives concerning supply adequacy, which are not preempted, 9 See OATT Attachment M XI; see also, 18 C.F.R (g)(3)(vi). 10 See Pet. App. 14a. 11 See Pet. App. 12a. 12 Id. 13 See Pet. App. 19a, 25a.
8 4 under available alternative approaches, including an alternative included in the PJM market rules. ARGUMENT Congress, with the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and the FERC, with the issuance of Order No. 888, launched an ambitious effort to restructure the electric industry and to reform the regulation of that industry based on competition principles in place of the traditional cost-of-service ratemaking model. 14 A market permits competition from new entrants that are not regulated public utilities and creates an incentive for lower costs and technical innovation. Actual costs of generation have been reduced as a result and technical innovation has occurred as a result. The rationale for a competition-based regulatory approach holds that just and reasonable prices can be obtained from markets that do not have structural market power or that employ rules to mitigate market power. 15 As the lower court observes, the federal scheme represents a comprehensive program of regulation that is quite sensitive to external tampering. 16 Market participants, including both suppliers and buyers, are deprived of the benefits of competition if suppliers are permitted to exercise market power and raise prices above competitive levels or if buyers are permitted to 14 See a 74a. 15 See Pet. App. 158a. 16 See Pet. App. 13a.
9 5 exercise market power and reduce prices below competitive levels. The PJM markets include an energy market and a capacity market. Both operate with a single clearing price, subject to local transmission constraints. In equilibrium, the capacity market provides the difference in revenues between the annual total costs of a new unit and the net revenues such a new unit earns in the energy market. The demand for capacity is defined by the reliability needs of the PJM system. The supply of capacity is defined by competitive offers from suppliers of capacity, the owners of generating units. An increase of zero price capacity supply shifts the supply curve of capacity to the right resulting in a lower clearing price for all capacity. The supply curve of capacity is quite steep at the point of intersection meaning that a relatively small increase in zero price capacity can have a significant impact on the clearing price for all capacity. There are at least two broad paradigms on which PJM markets and wholesale electricity markets like it can rely to address the price suppressing effect of mandatory over supply and to ensure reliability. The market paradigm includes a full set of markets, most importantly the energy market and capacity market, which together ensure that there are adequate revenues to incent new generation when and where it is needed and to incent retirement of units when appropriate. The market paradigm will result in long term reliability at the lowest possible cost. The market
10 6 paradigm also fits well with Maryland s competitive approach to the provision of retail electric service. The quasi-market paradigm includes an energy market but addresses the need for investment incentives via the long-term contract model or the costof-service ratemaking model. In the quasi-market paradigm, competition to build capacity is limited. In the quasi-market paradigm, customers absorb the risks associated with new investment through guaranteed payments under either guaranteed long term contracts or the traditional cost-of-service ratemaking approach. In the quasi-market paradigm there is no market clearing pricing to incent investment in existing units. In the quasi-market paradigm there is no open competition to provide lower cost capacity or technically superior capacity or to operate at maximum efficiency. The quasi-market paradigm substitutes regulation for the energy and capacity markets. The PJM capacity market (known as the Reliability Pricing Model or RPM) exists to provide a market mechanism for the provision and pricing of reliability. 17 PJM also procures a limited amount of capacity (less than ten percent in the 2017/2018 base auction) under an optional program (Fixed Resource Requirement Alternative or FRR) that allows load-serving entities to develop reliability plans including a portfolio of identified capacity resources under contract. 18 No part 17 See OATT Attachment DD. 18 See RAA Schedule 8.1.
11 7 of Maryland participates in this alternative program. 19 The price paid per megawatt of capacity can differ depending on location. The aim of federal policy in the market paradigm is not to establish a single uniform price for every unit of capacity, but rather to ensure that prices paid reflect competition and not market power. 20 The Generation Order provides for the procurement of certain new generation resources and requires Maryland electric distribution companies to enter into mandatory and non-bypassable long term contracts for differences with selected resources. 21 The Generation Order determined that it was not reasonable to entrust the reliability of our State s electricity supply entirely to the operation of a capacity market that, by design, seeks to incent long-term assets solely through short-term price signals. 22 The Generation Order did not, however, order the construction of new resources to supplement the capacity procured in PJM capacity market auctions. The effect of the Generation Order is to procure new capacity at substantially in excess of the market price and, with all the risks imposed on customers, include it in the PJM capacity market when there was no need for additional new entry. The effect on the PJM capacity market occurs because the Generation Order 19 See Md. Code. Pub. Utils , et seq., (c)(4)(ii). 20 See Pet. App. 154a. 21 See Pet. App. 14a. 22 See Pet. App. 53a.
12 8 process selects only capacity from a new entrant and requires that new entrant to offer and clear in the PJM capacity market. 23 Because resources selected under the Generation Order receive out-of-market payments and are indifferent to RPM prices, their only incentive is to offer at a level low enough to guarantee that they clear, i.e. at a price of zero. As a result of such subsidized offers, PJM procures the same amount of capacity at a suppressed and inefficient price. The arrangement in the Generation Order does not increase the levels of capacity procured in RPM capacity auctions. There is no evidence that there is or was a reliability issue in Maryland at the time of the Generation Order. PJM has successfully maintained reliability in Maryland and throughout the PJM footprint since the beginning of the markets in 1999 at competitive prices. The price of capacity has been below the cost of new entry for much of this period. Nonetheless, if the Maryland Public Service Commission had determined that it believed that additional capacity was required in order to provide additional reliability in Maryland, the Maryland Public Service Commission could have proposed an arrangement that procured additional capacity, charged ratepayers for 100 percent of that capacity and not required that the capacity be offered in the market. In that case, the additional capacity would have supplemented rather than displaced capacity procured in the PJM capacity market. Such an approach would be a way to increase reliability in Maryland with new 23 See Pet. App. 33a.
13 9 generation without impacting the PJM capacity market and the federal regulatory scheme. The arrangement actually adopted in the Generation Order is rational from the state s perspective only if a reduction of market prices sufficient to offset the costs to procure the Generation Order resources occurs. The overall result would be that a subsidized resource receives above market prices for its capacity while competitive resources receive below market prices. Such price discrimination would prevent the market from establishing prices that are competitive and efficient and have a corresponding negative impact on other market participants in Maryland and in other states. In a competition-based wholesale regulatory scheme, a price below the competitive and efficient level is not just and reasonable under the Federal Power Act. 24 Competition-based rates must reflect competition and not the exercise of market power. The Generation Order approach is not consistent with the operation of a competitive capacity market. Offering capacity purchased through this Generation Order process into the PJM capacity market at prices less than cost artificially suppresses prices in the PJM capacity market. Suppressed prices negatively affect the incentives to build new generation and, if extended, would result in a situation where only subsidized units would ever be built. 25 This result contradicts a fundamental policy goal that investors build resources 24 See Pet. App. 158a. 25 See Pet. App. 36a.
14 10 at their own risk and not at the risk of ratepayers. Ironically, the resultant price suppression would have negatively affected incentives for competitive generation to build in Maryland as well as other PJM areas. If allowed to persist, the Generation Order approach would eventually replace the market approach with a quasi-market approach in PJM. The effects are not limited to Maryland but extend to the entire PJM market. The market approach created under federal policy cannot coexist with a quasi-market approach under state policy. The Market Monitor prepared and submitted to the Maryland Public Service Commission a report containing a detailed analysis supporting the conclusion that offers from Generation Order-selected resources would suppress capacity market prices below competitive levels. 26 Specifically, the Market Monitor s analysis indicated that adding 1,800 MW of installed capacity in the Pepco zone in Maryland, paying it through an out of market subsidy, and requiring it to offer at zero would result in a reduction in capacity market revenues to PJM suppliers of more than one billion dollars per year, including about 92 million dollars in Pepco. Moreover, the Generation Order approach also interferes with the establishment of just and 26 See Comments of the Independent Market Monitor for PJM, Maryland PSC Case No (Jan. 28, 2011) at 4, which can be accessed at: < NewIndex3_VOpenFile.cfm?ServerFilePath=C:\Casenum\ \9214\63.pdf>.
15 11 reasonable rates under the Federal Power Act because it is unduly discriminatory. The Generation Order approach renders a selected investment immune to market results in a manner that confiscates a portion of the market value of existing investment not similarly immune and creates a disincentive to new entry from competitive suppliers. Even though the particular Generation Order approach adopted by Maryland is an overreach, this does not mean that there are no valid approaches through which Maryland could have met its statutory duties. 27 As the lower courts have recognized, Maryland has the right and the obligation to address its own reliability needs if it does not think they are being adequately addressed through the PJM wholesale markets and if it can do so without interfering with FERC s jurisdiction over the wholesale power market. 28 The most direct option would be for Maryland to require that Maryland load-serving entities opt out of the PJM capacity market (RPM) and participate in the FRR. 29 FRR is designed for load-serving entities in state jurisdictions participating in PJM that, unlike Maryland, do not have a competitive approach to the provision of retail electric service. FRR allows for investment by vertically integrated utilities operating at the wholesale level and at the state/retail level 27 See Pet. App. 54a. 28 See Pet. App. 22a 24a. 29 See Pet. App. 91a.
16 12 under the traditional cost-of-service ratemaking approach, but insulates the competitive centralized capacity market operated by PJM from the effects of incompatible investment by requiring that all state load be met by FRR generation and sharply limiting the excess generation that can be sold into the competitive market. FRR is imperfect; it is a compromise. FRR avoids interference with the PJM capacity market, and, therefore, avoids preemption. Under FRR, Maryland s procurement choices would not have an impact on other participants outside Maryland in RPM markets. Under FRR, Maryland could make its own decisions about how best to reach required reliability levels. The selection of the FRR option in Maryland would put the entire responsibility for reliability and the associated costs on the customers of Maryland. Maryland instead chose to improperly attempt to have the best of both worlds, with low capacity market prices made lower by the Maryland subsidy, and a subsidized unit. New entrants have a discriminatory opportunity to offer at above competitive levels in the Generation Order process. If capacity procured under the Generation Order is built and offered into the PJM capacity market (as the Generation Order requires), the Generation Order provides a requirement to offer and an overwhelming incentive to offer it below competitive levels. The owners of capacity built under the Generation Order, unlike owners of capacity financed in the market, have an assured revenue stream, courtesy of captive Maryland ratepayers, and they are indifferent to the capacity market clearing price.
17 13 The incentive to offer at below competitive levels is why, considered in the overall regulatory and market structure, the offer that the Generation Order is designed to elicit is a potential exercise of monopsony power. Such an exercise of market power is not consistent with the federal policy of competition-based regulation that underpins the market rules in the PJM tariff, nor is it consistent with Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, which the FERC is responsible to administer. As a matter of economics, the Generation Order clearly intrudes upon and interferes with the federal wholesale market design. As matter of law, such intrusion and interference by a state is preempted. 30 In finding preemption, the lower courts focused on the fact that, as a result of the contract for differences awarded under the Generation Order, the new entrant received a price for participation in the capacity market different than it would have received in the capacity market without the contract. The intrusion on federal policy also includes the impact on the market prices paid to other market participants in the wholesale power market. The impact of the Generation Order is the suppression of the market clearing price paid to other participants in the PJM capacity market below competitive levels. Not only does the Generation Order establish a different rate than the intended federal wholesale rate, it increases the difference between the contract rate and the market rate by interfering with the market mechanism relied upon to ensure a lawful rate. 30 See Pet. App. 19a, 25a.
18 14 The FERC approved a market design intended to establish a just and reasonable market clearing price. The Generation Order by its terms worked to establish a different and unlawful price. Both field and conflicts preemption preclude that result. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Market Monitor respectfully urges that the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit be upheld. January 19, 2016 Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey W. Mayes Counsel of Record Joseph E. Bowring Monitoring Analytics, LLC 2621 Van Buren Avenue, Suite 160 Eagleville, Pennsylvania (610) Counsel for Amicus Curiae
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION CPV Maryland, LLC ) ) ) Docket No. ER14-2106-000 PROTEST OF THE INDEPENDENT MARKET MONITOR FOR PJM Pursuant to Rule 211 of the Commission
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Independent Market Monitor for PJM v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. EL14- -000 COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ) ) ) Docket No. ER12-2391-001 COMMENTS OF THE INDEPENDENT MARKET MONITOR FOR PJM Pursuant to Rule 211
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 email@example.com Doubts About State-Mandated Power Contracts Law360,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PJM INTERCONNECTION, L.L.C. ) Docket Nos. ER13-535-000 ) ER13-535-001 REPLY COMMENTS OF THE PJM POWER PROVIDERS GROUP On March 4,
Resource Adequacy: Theory and Markets Presented to: Joint SPARC and Markets Committee David B. Patton, Ph.D. President, Potomac Economics April 23, 2014 Introduction Potomac Economics is the Independent
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Rock Island Clean Line LLC ) Docket No. ER12-365-000 ROCK ISLAND CLEAN LINE LLC S ANSWER TO COMMENTS OF INTERSTATE POWER AND LIGHT
Jurisdiction Over Net Metering Harvard Electric Policy Group June 12, 2014 David B. Raskin Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP Draskin@steptoe.com 202-429-6254 1 Thesis of My Presentation FERC has jurisdiction
PJM Interconnection October 6, 2014 This page is intentionally left blank. PJM 2014 www.pjm.com 2 P a g e Introduction In any market, the participation of consumer response to price is essential to healthy
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the matter of the application of ) CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY ) for certain relief in connection with the ) Case No.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PJM Interconnection, LLC ) Docket No. ER10-2280-000 MOTION TO INTERVENE AND COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION In
ENERGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Electricity Market Review: Asset Ownership and Cost Recovery The Issue To review the range of practices in managing asset ownership and cost recovery in the electricity supply
NO. 14-1524 In the Supreme Court of the United States DIRECTV, INC., et al., v. Petitioners, RICHARD H. ROBERTS, TENNESSEE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Southwest Power Pool, Inc. ) ) Docket No. ER12-1179-000 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND PROTEST OF THE ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 151 FERC 62,146 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Duquesne Keystone, LLC Duquesne Conemaugh, LLC Chief Keystone Power, LLC Chief Conemaugh Power, LLC Docket No. EC15-133-000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Capacity Deliverability Across the ) Midwest Independent Transmission System ) Docket No. AD12-16-000 Operator, Inc./PJM Interconnection,
103 FERC 61, 044 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Pat Wood, III, Chairman; William L. Massey, and Nora Mead Brownell. Ontario Energy Trading International
ESRI Research Note The Irish Electricity Market: New Regulation to Preserve Competition Valeria di Cosmo and Muireann Á. Lynch Research Notes are short papers on focused research issues. They are subject
Nos. 14-614, 14-623, 14-634, and 14-694 In the Supreme Court of the United States DOUGLAS R.M. NAZARIAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, ET AL. CPV MARYLAND, LLC, PETITIONER v. PPL ENERGYPLUS,
No. 13-1269 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States WORLDCOM, INC., Petitioner, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Third- ) Party Provision of Ancillary Services; ) Docket Nos. RM11-24-000 Accounting and Financial Reporting
Via Electronic Submission Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary Commodity Futures Trading Commission Three Lafayette Center 1155 21 st Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20581 Re: Comments of the Joint Trade Association
JULY 11, 2007 VOLUME 3, NUMBER 5 Employers nationwide need to understand what is happening in Massachusetts. THE MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT: WHAT MUST EMPLOYERS DO? by Katherine J. Utz* firstname.lastname@example.org
Maryland s Supreme Court Loss: A Win for Consumers, Competition and States The Federal Power Act, like all collaborative federalism statutes, envisions a federal-state relationship requiring interdependence
How PURPA is driving utility scale solar in North Carolina By QF Solutions April 7, 2015 Overview 1. Utility Scale Solar in North Carolina 2. PURPA 101 What is PURPA? 3. How Avoided Costs are calculated
Retail Electric Rates in Deregulated and Regulated States: 2012Update Published April 2013 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20009-5715 202/467-2900 www.publicpower.org Retail Electric Rates
Closing the Gap Between Wholesale and Retail Transactive Energy Workshop March 28-29 Robert B. Burke GWAC MEMBER & PRINCIPAL ANALYST ISO NEW ENGLAND INC. Disclaimer This presentation represents the thoughts
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224 TAX EXEMPT AND GOVERNMENT ENTITIES DIVISION Number: 201430018 Release Date: 7/25/2014 Contact Person: Identification Number: Telephone
Monitoring Competitive Markets Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission John A. Levin, Assistant Counsel Statutory Authority Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Pennsylvania Public Utility Code Business
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ) Coordination Between Natural Gas ) Docket No. AD12-12-000 And Electricity Markets ) ) COMMENTS OF DOMINION RESOURCES SERVICES,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE APPLICATION OF THE : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO : Misc. No. 01-189 (Magistrate Judge Bredar) 18 U.S.C. 2703(d)
No. 11-1197 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- VERNON HADDEN,
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):
Analysis of Replacement Capacity for RPM s: June 1, 2007 to June 1, 2016 The Independent Market Monitor for PJM December 27, 2016 Monitoring Analytics 2016 www.monitoringanalytics.com This page intentionally
Corporate Renewable Energy Procurement: Industry Insights June 2016 AMERICAN COUNCIL ON RENEWABLE ENERGY ACORE is a national non profit organization dedicated to advancing the renewable energy sector through
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BEFORE THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Docket No. VIVINT SOLAR, INC. PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING I. Introduction Pursuant to N.H. Code Admin. R. Ann. PUC 203
NOS. 15-1044, 15-1045 In the Supreme Court of the United States PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, Petitioner, v. LEE PELE, Respondent. ---------------------------- PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 151 FERC 62,147 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Georgia Power Company Docket No. EC15-132-000 ORDER AUTHORIZING DISPOSITION OF JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES (Issued June 1, 2015)
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
Seventh Revised Volume No. 5 (MT) Original Sheet No. 71 SCHEDULE 1 Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service This service is required to schedule the movement of power through, out of, within, or
Presentation for The National Commission for Energy State Regulation of Ukraine Todd Keech Laura Walter PJM Interconnection June 17, 2014 What is PJM? 1 What is PJM? ISO RTO Map Part of Eastern Interconnection
The California Solar Initiative The California Solar Initiative (CSI) has a goal to create 3,000 MW of distributed solar generation in California while creating a self-sustaining solar industry free from
No. 12-416 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ENERGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Electricity Market Review: Market Power The Issue To review the range of practices in assessing and mitigating market power in the electricity supply industry, and to consider
State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Release date October 19, 2011 New Jersey Throwout Rule Litigation and Potential Issues In Whirlpool Properties,
CALIFORNIA ISO Pre-dispatch and Scheduling of RMR Energy in the Day Ahead Market Prepared by the Department of Market Analysis California Independent System Operator September 1999 Table of Contents Executive
PJM Manual 14A Generation and Transmission Interconnection Process Revision: 18 Effective Date: January 28, 2016 Prepared by Planning Division Generation Interconnection Department PJM 2016 Table of Contents
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Electric Storage Participation in Regions with Organized Wholesale Electric Markets Docket No. AD16-20-000 COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE NATIONAL OFFICE TECHNICAL ADVICE MEMORANDUM August 04, 2003 Number:200347014 Release Date: 11/21/2003 Third Party Contact: Index (UIL) No.: 61.00-00 CASE-MIS No.: TAM-134061-03/CC:
Retail Electric Rates in Deregulated and Regulated States: Update Published April 2016 2451 Crystal Dr. Arlington, VA 22202 202.467.2900 www.publicpower.org Retail Electric Rates in Deregulated and Regulated
No. 08-987 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- RUBEN CAMPA, RENE
Billing Code: 8025-01 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 121 RIN: 3245-AG59 Advisory Small Business Size Decisions AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule implements
131 FERC 61,148 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and John R. Norris. California Independent
USCA Case #15-1173 Document #1563792 Filed: 07/22/2015 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT BEYOND NUCLEAR, INC. Petitioner, v. Case No. 15-1173 UNITED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 18 CFR Part 101 (Docket No. RM04-12-000; Order No. 668) Accounting and Financial Reporting for Public Utilities Including RTOs (Issued December
PJM Overview and Wholesale Power Markets John Gdowik PJM Member Relations PJM s Role Ensures the reliability of the high-voltage electric power system Coordinates and directs the operation of the region
2014 Retail Electric Rates in Deregulated and Regulated States Published April 2015 2014 Retail Electric Rates in Deregulated and Regulated States Prepared by Paul Zummo, Manager, Policy Research and Analysis
cv Eric M. Berman, P.C., et al. v. City of New York, et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 01 (Argued: December 1, 01 Decided: August, 01) Docket
Retail Electric Rates in Deregulated and Regulated States: A Ten Year Comparison Published March 2008 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20009-5715 202/467-2900 www.appanet.org Retail Electric
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the matter of the application of ) LIBERTY POWER DELAWARE, LLC, ) Case No. for a license as an alternative electric
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION California Independent System ) Docket No. ER15-1783-000 Operator Corporation ) ANSWER OF THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 Before the ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the Matter of a Generic Proceeding to Establish Uniform Policies and Guidelines
No. 12-52 In The Supreme Court of the United States DAN S CITY USED CARS, INC., D/B/A DAN S CITY AUTO BODY, v. Petitioner, ROBERT PELKEY, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire
140 FERC 62,085 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC Footprint Power Acquisitions LLC Footprint Power Salem Harbor Operations LLC Footprint Power
750 1 st St, NE Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20002 202.682.6294 Main 202.682.3050 Fax www.cleanskies.org March 2, 2011 Via Electronic Docket Hon. Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
USCA Case #13-1311 Document #1520912 Filed: 11/05/2014 Page 1 of 7 ORAL ARGUMENT IN CASE NO. 13-1311 SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 21, 2014 Case Nos. 13-1311 and 14-1225 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
Virginia Electric and Power Company Subsection A 4 Rate Adjustment Clause Table of Contents Direct Testimony and Exhibits David M. Wilkinson James D. Jackson, Jr. Paul B. Haynes Filing Schedule 46 Filing
No. 14-181 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States ALFRED GOBEILLE, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Vermont Green Mountain Care
P O L I C Y B R I E F kaiser commission on medicaid and the uninsured September 2011 Explaining Douglas v. Independent Living Center: Questions about the Upcoming United States Supreme Court Case Regarding
10 Krey Boulevard Rensselaer, NY 12144 May 20, 2013 Submitted Electronically Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Re: New York Independent
Looking for trouble: Finding direct conflicts between Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state substantive law Introduction In this essay I argue that the decision in Shady Grove v. Allstate is untenable
139 FERC 61,088 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur. Silver State Solar
No. 07-219 upreme eurt at i tnitel tateg EXXON SHIPPING COMPANY, et al., V. Petitioners, GRANT BAKER, et al., Respondents. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For
Capacity Performance Proposal October 15, 2014 Section II Capacity Products Capacity Performance Product Base Capacity Product Specific Resource Types and Coupling Storage Resources Intermittent Resources
A Review of Generation Compensation and Cost Elements in the PJM Markets This page is intentionally left blank. 2 P age Table of Contents Executive Summary... 6 Introduction and Purpose... 8 PJM Market
Legal Department American Electric Power 801 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 320 Washington, DC 20004-2615 AEP.com February 29, 2012 Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2009 ME 92 Docket: WCB-08-663 Argued: May 20, 2009 Decided: August 18, 2009 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD,
Before the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN Madison Wisconsin Investigation of Voice over ) Case No. 5-TI-2071 Internet Protocol in Wisconsin ) Public Comments of Communications Workers of America
theantitrustsource www.antitrustsource.com May 2004 1 Making Sense of the Telemarketing Laws: How the FTC Rule, the FCC Rule, and State Laws Fit Together Edward Correia A As most telemarketing companies