Response to 'Time to Put the Kibosh on Pancaking Section 206 Complaints'

Deck: 

Letter to the Editor

Fortnightly Magazine - June 2019
This full article is only accessible by current license holders. Please login to view the full content.
Don't have a license yet? Click here to sign up for Public Utilities Fortnightly, and gain access to the entire Fortnightly article database online.

An April 2019 opinion article by Carmen Gentile urges FERC to "Put the Kibosh on Pancaking Section 206 Complaints." According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, "kibosh" may derive from the Turkish word, bosh - meaning empty talk, nonsense. Because Mr. Gentile and I have a warmly collegial relationship spanning three decades, I won't apply those aspersions to his article. But I will say that it's legally erroneous.

The refund provisions of Federal Power Act Section 206 were enacted through the 1988 Regulatory Fairness Act. A few years later, FERC found it statutorily appropriate to investigate Allegheny Generating's equity return, "despite the fact that [it was] ... already investigating its equity return in another proceeding." Consumer Advocate Div'n v. Allegheny Generating Co., 67 FERC 61,288, at 61,200, on reh'g, 68 FERC 61,207 (1994) (Allegheny GenCo).

FERC reasoned that "The record in that proceeding is based, inter alia, on market data which ended early in 1992. This complaint relies on more recent information. In effect, the joint complainants bring a new claim, rather than reiterate their previous allegations. We thus find no effort to evade the strictures of the RFA's-month refund protection period."

This full article is only accessible by current license holders. Please login to view the full content.
Don't have a license yet? Click here to sign up for Public Utilities Fortnightly, and gain access to the entire Fortnightly article database online.