FPA

Applicants can only hope that a prompt review won't be even more difficult

By a unanimous vote, on December 18, 1996, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued Order No. 592, stating how it intends to evaluate utility mergers. The anticipation has ended, yet those hoping for a new approach and a quicker review are bound to be disappointed.

Order 592 is a "Policy Statement." As such, it only announces intentions; it imposes no new obligations and is not subject to judicial review until implemented in a specific case.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued two orders that indicate for the first time how it would implement the prohibition against "sham" transactions under the Energy Policy Act. The separate decisions involve requests by two municipalities for orders requiring utilities to wheel power.

In one order, the FERC denied a request by the City of Palm Springs, CA, for electric transmission service from Southern California Edison (SCE) under sections 211 and 212 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (Docket No. TX96-7-000).

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has conditionally allowed QST Energy Trading, Inc., a subsidiary of Central Illinois Light Co. to make sales to nonaffiliates as well as to an affiliate, QST Energy, Inc. (FERC Docket No. ER96-553-000). In turn, QST Energy would sell power in Illinois to customers located outside the service territory of Central Illinois.

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.

Bunker Hill. Gettysburg. Pearl Harbor. Iwo Jima. The Cold War. Each of these famous conflicts resonates in our history books. Despite the end of the Cold War, we may face another battle, this time between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the states over jurisdiction.

In its recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) on wholesale competition and open-access transmission,1 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has outlined a plan to revolutionize the electricity industry.

Will the Crown accept the olive branch offered by its colony, or will conflict ensue? That was the question posed on July 13 by Thomas Page, CEO of San Diego Gas and Electric Co., at the "Western States Workshop on California Restructuring," the first industrywide meeting to discuss the policy proposals issued six weeks before by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).The Crown sent its emissaries.

The pending merger of El Paso Electric Co. (EPE) and Central and South West Services, Inc. (CSW) keeps going and going and going. But the issue of "comparability" has yet to be left in the dust. And so another landmark case looms large, giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) another opportunity to shape future wheeling and merger transactions.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has adopted a policy statement on hydroelectric plant decommissioning, claiming authority to deny new project licenses when existing licenses expire and to order owners to remove a dam during the relicensing process. These measures would only be applied if the FERC concludes that a project, no matter how many conditions were imposed, could no longer meet the comprehensive development standard of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (Docket No. RM93-23-000).

The statement was one of three hydroelectric orders considered as a group.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has upheld a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) finding that the municipal preference in hydropower project relicensing cases did not apply to "orphaned" facilities. Facilities are considered orphaned if the current license holder files a notice of intent to apply for a relicense, but then fails to file a timely application.