After almost eight years since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) commenced its investigation against Barclays Bank PLC (Barclays) and four of its traders, Scott Connelly, Daniel Brin, Karen Levine and Ryan Smith, for allegedly manipulating the California electricity markets, Barclays filed its answer in federal district court. As expected, Barclays denied all of FERC’s substantive allegations and asserted that the District Court should give no merit to FERC’s findings of fact or legal conclusions. FERC, according to Barclays and the individual traders, must prove its case before an independent arbiter and cannot rely on anything that happened at the agency level. FERC is seeking a $435 million civil penalty against Barclays; $15 million against Connelly; and $1 million each from Brin and Levine. (more…)
WE KNOW ENERGY®
Robert E. Pease, David Perlman and Michael Brooks
Mark Lewis and Robert E. Pease
On June 17, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) Division of Audits and Accounting, Office of Enforcement (DAA), issued two audit reports involving oil pipelines, the Colonial Pipeline Company Docket No. FA14-4 and Enterprise Products Partners, L.P., Docket No. FA14-1. The Enterprise audit focused on Mid-American Pipeline Company, LLC (MAPL), a subsidiary of Enterprise. These reports are significant because they demonstrate that FERC audit staff is taking a comprehensive look at oil pipeline accounting and rate issues along with enhanced scrutiny of affiliate issues. DAA found five minor areas of noncompliance in the Colonial audit and ten findings of noncompliance with respect to Enterprise. The Enterprise findings were more significant because they involved under recovery of revenues as a result of dealings with an affiliate and failure to follow proper accounting for depreciation and prepaid leases, among other findings. In addition to Colonial and Enterprise, FERC has also announced two other oil pipeline company audits involving Enbridge Energy Partners LP, Docket No. FA15-4, and Plantation Pipe Line Company, Docket FA15-12. Prior to these audits, FERC had not audited an oil pipeline in many years. (more…)
David Perlman, Stephen Hug and Caitlin Tweed
On June 9, 2015, FERC issued an order accepting PJM’s proposal to modify its forward capacity market, the Reliability Pricing Model (“RPM”), to establish a new capacity product, the Capacity Performance Resource. PJM’s proposal is designed to tighten the performance standards applicable to resources that receive a capacity obligation through the RPM and is intended to address poor resource performance that has been experienced since implementation of the RPM, especially during the 2014 polar vortex.
Once implemented, PJM’s proposal will impose more stringent performance standards on resources that receive a capacity obligation through the RPM, including imposing non-performance charges when resources fail to perform and bonus payments for over-performance. All capacity resources will be eligible to offer as Capacity Performance Resources, and demand resources, energy efficiency resources, capacity storage resources, and intermittent resources will be allowed to aggregate their capabilities in order to reliably perform during emergency conditions. A Non-Performance Charge will be assessed on resources who fail to perform during system emergencies. (more…)
Bracewell & Giuliani
On Monday 15th June, Bracewell & Giuliani, Khalid Anwer & Co and the Middle East Solar Industry Association hosted a webinar – Pakistan’s Renewable FiT: What Developers and Lenders Need to Know, which was attended by sponsors, lenders and other key stakeholders. (more…)
Two weeks ago, we started our series of posts examining the Obama Administration’s final rule redefining the waters subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act by looking at the bottom line, legally, of the waters now considered to be always jurisdictional. We then examined the waters that will probably be (and may be) jurisdictional, as well as a few of the ambiguities remaining in the final rule and some that were resolved by the agencies before finalization. Following two posts on changes we believe the Administration should have made but didn’t and one examining the practical reality of proving jurisdiction under the significant nexus test, today’s post is our last, and we’ll finish 180 degrees from our first one. That post looked at the legal bottom line; today we give you our view of the practical one. (more…)
This is our penultimate post on the Administration’s final Waters of the US rule. For those of you who have read our last 16 posts on the proposed and final rules (hi Mom!), you know we have concerns about the significant nexus test. Our concern is not just the breadth of the test, but its ambiguity and need for case-by-case application. For the regulated community, knowing when one must comply with the law is half the battle (at least). And the significant nexus test, based on neither science nor the language of the Clean Water Act, is an ambiguous, case-by case test.
But apart from its ambiguity, there is the practical reality – the practical difficulty – of actually applying the test. Now that the test has been ensconced into regulation, we’ll take a quick look at the practical implications of applying of the test. (more…)