The California ISO is going its own way with its proposal for transmission planning, virtually ignoring FERC’s proposed rules on transmission planning and cost allocation. California wants to...
From EPAct to Order 1000, siting authority continues evolving.
away from it any precedential effect”). Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) (defining vacate as “[t]o nullify or cancel; make void; invalidate”); Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1989) (defining vacate as “to make legally void; annul”). Notably, a petition for a writ of certiorari, concerning California Wilderness Coalition was not filed with the Supreme Court. See Jason Fordney, Esther Whieldon, “ DOE Transmission Corridors Face Uncertainty ,” Electric Power Daily , May 6, 2011.
38. 16 U.S.C. § 824p(b)(1)(C)(i).
39. Proposed Siting Delegation to FERC, available at http://www.congestion09.anl.gov/news/index.cfm#ferc.
40. DOE and FERC Joint Public Statement on Back Stop Siting, available at http://energy.gov/articles/doe-and-ferc-joint-public-statement-back-stop-siting.
41. See, e.g. , Order No. 1000 at P 68, 225, 350.
42. Order No. 1000 at P 227.
43. A non-incumbent transmission developer is an entity that does not have a retail distribution service territory or a public utility that proposes a transmission project outside of its existing retail distribution service territory. A “nonincumbent transmission developer” refers to two categories of transmission developer: (1) a transmission developer that does not have a retail distribution service territory or footprint; and (2) a public utility transmission provider that proposes a transmission project outside of its existing retail distribution service territory or footprint, where it is not the incumbent for purposes of that project. Order No. 1000 at P 227.
44. An incumbent transmission developer/provider is an entity that develops a transmission project within its own retail distribution service territory or footprint. Order No. 1000 at P 227.
45. 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102 (2011).
46. Delmarva Power & Light Co. v. Commonwealth , 870 A.2d 901 (Pa. 2005).
47. In Re: Application of Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company (TrAILCo) , PA PUC Docket No. A-110172, et al, Recommended Decision, 2008 Pa. PUC LEXIS 28 (2008) (TrAILCo requested that the Commission issue a certificate of public convenience to allow it to be recognized as a Pennsylvania public utility and permit it to exercise eminent domain authority).
48. The pending application filed in Maryland for a certificate to construct the PATH transmission line was withdrawn on February 28, 2011.
49. In the Matter of the Application of Potomac Edison Company on behalf of PATH Allegheny Transmission Company, LLC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct the Maryland Segments of 765 kV Electric Transmission Line and Substation in Frederick County, Maryland , Order No. 82892 (September 9, 2009).
50. Md. Public Utilities Code Ann. § 7-207(b)(3).
51. Md. Public Utilities Code Ann. § 1-101(h).
52. In the Matter of the Application of Potomac Edison Company d/b/a/ Allegheny Power for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct the Maryland Segments of 765 kV Electric Transmission Line and Substation in Frederick County, Maryland , Order No. 83469, 2010 Md. PSC LEXIS 15 (July 13, 2010).
53. The Maryland PSC noted that the state law does not require that the electric company seeking a certificate ( i.e. the applicant) to own the line, and it would not create an ownership requirement where the statute does not.
54. Brief of the