Two-thirds of MISO’s $7.5 million in DAMAP payments to wind resources in 2015 and 2016 was because of over-forecasting and only $2.5 million was spent on curtailment, Patton said. “Most of our wind DAMAP payments are unjustified,” he said.

The purpose of DAMAP is to provide an incentive for Market Participants to be flexible in their offers in the real-time market.

The DAMAP compensates suppliers when (i) the real-time dispatch of a resource is reduced below the day-ahead schedule's level, and (ii) the market participant would have been financially better off in real-time had it operated at its day-ahead schedule.

FERC did show some recalcitrance and at least “appeared” to “withhold” the segregable portions of requested documents “merely to avoid embarrassment or frustrate the requester,” or simply to avoid the time-consuming work of separating information that could be properly withheld from information that could not.

The D.C. Circuit has instructed this court “to consider at least four criteria in determining whether a substantially prevailing FOIA litigant is entitled to attorney’s fees: (1) the public benefit derived from the case; (2) the commercial benefit to the plaintiff; (3) the nature of the plaintiff’s interest in the records; and (4) the reasonableness of the agency’s withholding.”

A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned.

...immediately convene an independent audit of all public comment statements submitted to docket of Case No. CP16-22 since the opening of the comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement; that the Commission strike Intervenors’ Exhibits A through O from the docket and grant leave to any intervenors to this proceeding to submit
further pleadings relating to striking other public comment statements from the docket; finally, that the Commission make a referral to its Division of Investigations, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector-General, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector-General, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

As an energy consumer advocacy organization, CEA has developed a process of gathering grassroots support for affordable, reliable energy projects. As part of that widely accepted business process, CEA conducts automated telephone surveys with selected individuals. When an automated call is placed, and consistent with accepted industry practice, the call is directed to the individual listed in phone company records. The individual who participates in the survey is asked a series of questions from a scripted questionnaire to which he or she is requested to answer by pressing on the phone’s keyboard “1” for “yes” and “2” for “no”. But, it is the nature of automated surveys that the questions are not asked by a live person and there is no process to identify and confirm who answers the phone and responds to the question.

The survey used here began with an introductory statement telling the respondent that the Commission is considering whether or not to grant a permit to build the NEXUS pipeline and explaining the benefits of the pipeline, including creation of jobs in the region and reduction of energy costs for manufacturers and consumers. The survey continued with the express question on whether or not the respondent would give his or her permission to relay to the Commission his support for the pipeline. If the respondent replied with “no”, the survey would ask another question reiterating the importance of the Project and again ask the respondent if he or she would support the pipeline and authorize CEA to pass that view on to the Commission. On behalf of those respondents who indicated their support for the project and authorized CEA to forward that viewpoint to the Commission, CEA then generated the letter for the 347 individuals that were filed.

Moreover, it is implicit in the nature of any automated phone survey that from time to time there will be instances where the person who answers the phone and responds to the survey is not the person listed in the telephone company’s records as the householder. This would explain the inadvertent error that can occur when a supporting letter is generated in the name of the person listed as householder, but someone else actually answers the phone. So, even though the householder – in whose name the support letter was generated – may not be competent or even in agreement, the person who answered did respond affirmatively and authorize support for the Project. Similarly, in some instances the respondent may not fully understand the presented question, unintentionally answer it in the wrong way and later change his or her mind. Or, in some cases, the respondent may forget that the survey even took place, let alone that he or she gave the authorization for his comments to be filed with the Commission. CEA regrets any such misunderstanding or miscommunication that may have occurred.

... the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ("District Court") determined that review of a FERC-issued penalty for alleged market manipulation must be treated as an "ordinary civil action" requiring de novo review and finding against FERC's arguments to the contrary. The District Court further ordered in its decision, FERC v. Maxim Power Corp., et al., that in the corresponding civil action—to determine whether to affirm FERC's prior penalty assessment against the owners and operators of a power plant in Pittsfield, Massachusetts ("Maxim") and one of their employees (together, "Respondents")—the Respondents will be entitled to the full discovery of an ordinary civil case, and the proceeding can be decided by a jury, if necessary.

Another challenge facing the industry is the need to insulate state utility regulators from political pressure.

In instances around the country, he said, "you're seeing the confluence of politics challenging that independent regulatory model."

It's a reason the California Public Utilities Commission was located in San Francisco instead of Sacramento back in the 1800s when it was the California Railroad Commission, to protect regulators from the political influence of the powerful monopoly railroads.

Clark cited the Nevada Public Utilities Commission decision late last year in which regulators posted fixed charges for NV Energy customers with solar energy systems and slashed rates for compensation for excess energy put back on the grid (ClimateWire, Jan. 11).

He quoted a solar industry executive who told reporters that Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval should "get control of his appointees."

The comment, Clark said, "drives home that large segments of the public -- and sometimes fairly sophisticated people that operate in this space -- view regulatory commissions as just another extension of politics."

$1,167 per MW/month, escalating at 2 percent (2%) annually beginning as of the  Commencement Date for the first 100 MW tranche.

$1,667 per MW/month, escalating at 2 percent (2%) annually beginning as of the Commencement Date for the second 100 MW tranche.

$2,500 per MW /month.  For the first two years, after which time the contract may be extended for a period up to 26 years.

the Parties shall cooperate with
each other to obtain all Governmental Approvals that are required for Transmission Provider to construct and operate the Project and put this Agreement fully into effect, including making any filing in support of another Party's application for any such approval as requested by the Party
seeking such approval. From and after the Execution Date, the Parties shall not take any action, or seek any relief, before any other Governmental Authority that is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.