Formula Rate Matters. DAA continues to examine accounting that populates formula rate recovery mechanisms used in determining billings to wholesale customers. In recent formula rate audits, DAA observed certain patterns of noncompliance in the following areas:
• Merger Goodwill – including goodwill in the equity component of the capital structure absent Commission approval;
• Depreciation Rates – using state-approved or a blended depreciation rate consisting of Commission and state-approved depreciation rates without Commission approval;
• Merger Costs – including any merger-related costs in rates (e.g., third-party advisory fees, internal labor, severance, and other general and administrative costs) without Commission approval;
• Tax Prepayments – incorrectly recording tax overpayments not applied to a future tax year’s obligation as a prepayment leading to excess recovery through working capital;
• Unused Inventory and Equipment – including the cost of materials, supplies, and equipment purchased for a construction project without removing the cost of items unused in whole or in part from the cost of a project;
• Allocated Labor – using labor cost allocators not based on a representative time study to determine the amount of indirect labor costs to distribute to construction projects;
• Asset Retirement Obligation (ARO) – including ARO amounts in formula rates, without explicit Commission approval;
• Below-the-Line Costs – including below-the-line costs in formula rates (e.g., lobbying, charitable contributions, fines and penalties, and compromise settlements arising from discriminatory employment practices) without Commission approval; and
• Improper Capitalization – seeking to include in rate base (and earn a return on) costs that should be expensed.

Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., was the first to ask the inspector general to look at the way FERC has been investigating alleged energy market manipulation. Stressing the need for investigations to be transparent, Casey in July urged Friedman to look at seven specific aspects of FERC's enforcement program, including whether the agency has pursued enforcement actions against entities "that were not acting in violation of then-current applicable laws and regulations," and is "properly allocating its limited resources to investigation of cases that have the most deleterious effects on energy markets."

Then, in September, Barrasso and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, asked the inspector general to explore allegations questioning the fairness and transparency of FERC's enforcement program, including those made in an Energy Law Journal article co-authored by a former FERC general counsel asserting that the commission's enforcement process has become "lop-sided and unfair."

The two senators specifically asked if FERC is holding certain parties to different standards with regard to market manipulation. For instance, Barrasso and Collins questioned whether the public is being given "actionable notice" of the types of conduct FERC considers to be market manipulation. They also asked Friedman to explore the article's allegations that the targets of FERC investigations and their employees are not being afforded the due process "required by FERC's own regulations and precedents" and that provided by other federal enforcement agencies.

Powhatan Energy Fund has decided to take down its website at www.ferclitigation.com.  And, while the site is down, Powhatan will be declining all new requests to speak with the media and requests to present at conferences.

Ad hoc settlements win political plaudits, but because companies usually neither admit nor deny wrongdoing, the settlements set no meaningful or coherent legal precedents.

They can contact the IG hotline at:
[email protected]
D.C. Metro Area: (202) 586-4073
Toll free: (800) 541-1625
FAX: (202) 586-4902

“Your preliminary findings make no sense.  Should you choose to proceed with a public notice against Powhatan and/or Huntrise, please be advised that they will respond publicly and forcefully.”

The project also would be a significant source of revenue for PPL Corp., PPL Electric Utilities' Allentown-based parent. Under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules designed to encourage infrastructure investment, utilities may earn a profit of 11.68 percent on transmission projects.
That translates into a profit of up to $700 million. PPL would share the money with any other utilities that participate in the project.
PPL customers, meanwhile, would see the cost, including utility profits, reflected in their rates — though the burden of paying for the project would be shared by ratepayers in all four of the states involved.

If approved, PPL predicts, the project will improve energy reliability and security and provide customer savings by eliminating transmission bottlenecks and encouraging development of lower-cost natural gas-fueled generation plants.
The new plants would help replace energy supplied today primarily by coal-fired plants that, under increasingly stringent federal air quality standards, are expected to be retired in coming years.

Except, shouldn't the investigation come before a guy's promoted?

How assertive will Acting Chair Cheryl LaFleur be as a lame duck? And will she remain for her five-year term after she has to relinquish the gavel?

With Commissioner John Norris openly musing about his post-FERC future, who will replace him and how soon?

How will Bay resolve the investigation into Powhatan Energy Fund, whose principals have been running a public relations campaign accusing FERC of heavy-handed enforcement tactics?

FERC commissioners, however, disregard the just and reasonable standard, routinely ignore evidence and act more as agents of utilities than fair-minded regulators.

Absent from the commission is anyone who represents the rights of consumers.