The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has announced a new policy aimed at reducing the amount of time it takes for companies to deploy unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Specifically, companies that have obtained a Section 333 exemption for a UAS will now receive a “blanket” Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for flights at or below 200 feet. In the past, once the FAA granted a Section 333 Exemption the exemption holder would also have to file for a separate COA to fly the UAS in a particular block of airspace. The COA approval process can take 60 days. This announcement comes on the heels of the FAA’s release of a proposed rule governing small UAS flights in the United States. A major component of the proposed rule that stakeholders have supported was the FAA’s introduction of alternatives to the COA process. (more…)
WE KNOW ENERGY®
Recently, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published in the Federal Register its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking focused on the Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) or “drones” within the United States. The publication in the Federal Register starts the clock on the 60-day comment period, which at this point ends on April 24, 2015. My recent blog outlined the FAA’s general framework for the UAS ANPR, including the main operating limitations.
Today, I’ve listed below some of the major areas where the FAA is seeking input from stakeholders, including Risk Mitigation, Line-of-sight, Payload, International, Size Class, Crewmember, Testing Site, and other issues. Among other things, the FAA is looking for comments on the feasibility of its proposal, alternatives, any new technology that could inform its decision, data and studies.
The FAA specifically is seeking comment on: (more…)
On August 15, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued an opinion in South Carolina Public Service Authority v. FERC, Case Nos. 12-1232, et al. (consolidated), upholding the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) Order No. 1000 in its entirety, giving FERC a major win in a case involving 45 petitioners and 16 intervenors.
Authority to Require Participation: In Order No. 888 in 1996, FERC required public utility transmission providers to functionally unbundle their wholesale generation and transmission services and file open-access transmission tariffs to provide non-discriminatory transmission service and to provide the benefits of competitively priced generation. Previously, the D.C. Circuit upheld Order No. 888 in nearly all respects. In this opinion, the D.C. Circuit affirmed FERC’s conclusion that transmission planning affects transmission rates and that FERC has authority under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to require transmission providers to participate in a regional planning process. The Court expressed its view that such a requirement is simply the next step in reforms that began with Order No. 888. The Court also concluded that the statutory directive for “voluntary interconnection and coordination” found in Section 202(a) of the FPA does not bar FERC from requiring regional planning and that Order No. 1000 does not interfere with traditional state authority. (more…)
Bracewell & Giuliani
Category: Air Quality/Climate Change, Courts, Crude and Products, DOE, Electric, Enforcement, Environmental, Litigation, Midstream, National Energy Law, Natural Gas/LNG, Offshore, Power, Regional Energy Law, Renewable Energy/Cleantech, Shale Development, Transmission, Upstream Energy
David Perlman and Jessica Miller
This week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) put to rest any doubt that transmission rights pursuant to a pre-Order No. 888 transmission service agreement are subject to the FERC’s open access regime when the agreement is modified or becomes obsolete. In the same order, FERC found that a so-called “resale tariff” is only permissible where a jurisdictional transmission provider seeks to resell transmission rights on a non-jurisdictional transmission provider’s facilities—where the resale could not be facilitated under a FERC-approved Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT).
FERC’s February 27, 2014 order rejected a December 30, 2013 filing by SoCal Edison Company (SCE). SCE’s filing attempted to modify transmission rights it has held since 1966 under a transmission services agreement with Arizona Public Service Company (APS). The 1966 agreement arose in connection with SCE and APS’s joint ownership interests in two generating units at Four Corners in New Mexico. Pursuant to the agreement, APS constructed and operated a 500 kV transmission line from Four Corners to the Arizona-Nevada border, and SCE paid APS cost-based transmission service charges for rights to all of that line’s transmission capacity, for purposes of transmitting SCE’s portion of the units’ output to California. In 2013, SCE transferred to APS its ownership interests in the Four Corners units, so SCE no longer needed the transmission capacity it had held for more than four decades for purposes of transmitting its Four Corners capacity. (more…)
Robert E. Pease, David Perlman and Jennifer Lias
After an investigation of actions in the western electricity markets by Barclays Bank PLC (“Barclays”), Daniel Brin, Scott Connelly, Karen Levine, and Ryan Smith (collectively, the “Traders” and together with Barclays, “Defendants”), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) issued an order finding the Defendants in violation of FERC’s anti-manipulation regulations and assessing Barclays a $435 million civil penalty, assessing each Trader an individual civil penalty, and requiring disgorgement of $34.9 million plus interest in unjust profits.[i] In accordance with the Defendants’ election of a trial de novo in federal district court, on October 9, 2013 FERC filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California requesting an order affirming its assessment of penalties.
In response to FERC’s petition, on December 16, 2013, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.[ii] The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, as a matter of law, on the grounds that venue is not proper and that FERC has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (more…)