This mistake gets made a lot. Usually it is made by regular people who don't understand the transmission regulatory world, courts, or the concept of jurisdiction. Experienced energy attorneys look down their noses on people who make this mistake.
But what happens when this gross error is committed by one of their own, who should know better? Is it just a mistake of the most foolish kind, or is it a conscious choice to attempt to scare people who don't know any better to believe they are powerless?
This guy has a glorious sounding pedigree in the energy regulatory field. A client might think they could trust him to give sage advice about the regulatory world.
But then he wrote an article for legal trade journals that said this:
But what happens when this gross error is committed by one of their own, who should know better? Is it just a mistake of the most foolish kind, or is it a conscious choice to attempt to scare people who don't know any better to believe they are powerless?
This guy has a glorious sounding pedigree in the energy regulatory field. A client might think they could trust him to give sage advice about the regulatory world.
But then he wrote an article for legal trade journals that said this:
The developer of the Grain Belt Express line, Clean Line Energy Partners, is now considering its options, including going back to FERC and getting federal approval for the project. FERC has previously granted the Grain Belt Express line authority to charge negotiated rates more than three years ago.
*blink* *blink* *huh* *wha????* FERC cannot grant "federal approval" to an electric transmission line. Not no way, not no how. It also is not relevant to approval of a transmission line that FERC granted negotiated rate authority to the project (whether yesterday or 20 years ago).
This author has sadly conflated and confused Sections 1221 and 1222 of the Energy Policy Act and FERC's jurisdiction over transmission rates. And he did it in such spectacular fashion that even the lowliest transmission opponent is probably snorting with laughter.
Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act granted FERC permitting authority over interstate electric transmission projects located in National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors in the event a state was unable to act. Section 1221 was litigated extensively and the courts effectively neutered it. It no longer functions. But here's the thing... any 1221 projects must be located in an NIETC designated by the U.S. Department of Energy. There currently are no NIETCs designated by DOE. None. FERC can't do anything about Clean Line's failure.
Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act enables the U.S. Department of Energy to "participate" in transmission projects financed by third parties. There has only been one project to ever take advantage of Section 1222. It cost nearly $100M and 5 years to get through the process. And that project is completely stagnant and no closer to being built because it is a merchant project with no customers to finance it. Section 1222 has NOTHING to do with FERC, which is an independent regulatory agency under DOE's bailiwick. DOE does not have any authority over what FERC does. FERC has no role whatsoever in the 1222 process, which is handled solely by DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability (OE).
Transmission permitting and siting is state jurisdictional. That means that states have sole authority to permit and site transmission. But for the two instances listed above, state utility commissions are the end of the road for proposed transmission projects. However, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) does have jurisdiction over interstate transmission rates. Rates -- the amount transmission companies can charge for the transmission of electricity. FERC's jurisdiction is limited to rates, not the permitting of the actual transmission infrastructure. However many years ago it was, FERC approved Grain Belt Express's rate scheme, subject to future compliance filings. FERC only granted permission for GBE to charge certain rates to future customers. This has nothing to do with permitting the actual project, only with how much the project can charge its customers.
Joseph Donovan's contention that FERC could approve the project is completely ludicrous.
So, what was the purpose of that article? Was it intended to "scare" Missouri into changing its mind? Is the Missouri Public Service Commission supposed to change its mind and approve the project? Are the Missouri Courts supposed to reverse themselves to allow approval of the project? Is the Missouri Legislature supposed to be so afraid of FERC that they change Missouri law? Or are transmission opponents supposed to join forces with experienced regulatory attorneys to point their fingers and laugh at this guy?
Let me start.... feel free to join in at any time...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
This author has sadly conflated and confused Sections 1221 and 1222 of the Energy Policy Act and FERC's jurisdiction over transmission rates. And he did it in such spectacular fashion that even the lowliest transmission opponent is probably snorting with laughter.
Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act granted FERC permitting authority over interstate electric transmission projects located in National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors in the event a state was unable to act. Section 1221 was litigated extensively and the courts effectively neutered it. It no longer functions. But here's the thing... any 1221 projects must be located in an NIETC designated by the U.S. Department of Energy. There currently are no NIETCs designated by DOE. None. FERC can't do anything about Clean Line's failure.
Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act enables the U.S. Department of Energy to "participate" in transmission projects financed by third parties. There has only been one project to ever take advantage of Section 1222. It cost nearly $100M and 5 years to get through the process. And that project is completely stagnant and no closer to being built because it is a merchant project with no customers to finance it. Section 1222 has NOTHING to do with FERC, which is an independent regulatory agency under DOE's bailiwick. DOE does not have any authority over what FERC does. FERC has no role whatsoever in the 1222 process, which is handled solely by DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability (OE).
Transmission permitting and siting is state jurisdictional. That means that states have sole authority to permit and site transmission. But for the two instances listed above, state utility commissions are the end of the road for proposed transmission projects. However, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) does have jurisdiction over interstate transmission rates. Rates -- the amount transmission companies can charge for the transmission of electricity. FERC's jurisdiction is limited to rates, not the permitting of the actual transmission infrastructure. However many years ago it was, FERC approved Grain Belt Express's rate scheme, subject to future compliance filings. FERC only granted permission for GBE to charge certain rates to future customers. This has nothing to do with permitting the actual project, only with how much the project can charge its customers.
Joseph Donovan's contention that FERC could approve the project is completely ludicrous.
So, what was the purpose of that article? Was it intended to "scare" Missouri into changing its mind? Is the Missouri Public Service Commission supposed to change its mind and approve the project? Are the Missouri Courts supposed to reverse themselves to allow approval of the project? Is the Missouri Legislature supposed to be so afraid of FERC that they change Missouri law? Or are transmission opponents supposed to join forces with experienced regulatory attorneys to point their fingers and laugh at this guy?
Let me start.... feel free to join in at any time...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
RSS Feed