Summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s monthly open meeting to be held on May 15, 2025, pursuant to the sunshine notice released on May 8, 2025.
In this issue…
- Electric Items
- Hydro Items
Electric
E-1 – California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket No. ER24-2042-000). On May 16, 2024, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) submitted a compliance filing, pursuant to Order No. 2023 and Order No. 2023-A, with respect to proposed amendments to the CAISO Tariff. Order No. 2023, issued by the Commission on July 28, 2023, reformed the generator interconnection study processes of public utility transmission providers. Primarily, Order No. 2023 required that transmission providers employ a first-ready, first-served cluster study process for large generating facilities exceeding 20 MW. Order No. 2023-A, issued on March 21, 2024, extended the compliance deadline to May 16, 2024. Accordingly, in its compliance filing, CAISO proposed to revise its pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP), Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA), Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP), and Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA). CAISO asserted that it adopted Tariff revisions in accordance with the specific directives of the Commission in Order No. 2023, including but not limited to cluster studies, penalties for late studies, triggers for restudies, site control, co-location, and modeling requirements. On June 6, 2024, the Northern California Power Agency filed comments in support of the compliance filing, stating that the existing backlog in the CAISO interconnection queue is limiting and delaying new projects. Shell Energy North America (US), L.P., Shell New Energies US, LLC, and Savion, LLC (collectively, the Shell Companies) filed a limited protest on June 6, 2024, contending that the Commission should reject CAISO’s request for certain independent entity variations (i.e., even as a transmission provider, CAISO must justify its variations relative to the pro forma LGIP and/or LGIA). The Shell Companies stated that certain proposed amendments would not comport with Order No. 2023, namely the proposals to not include consideration of Affected System Network Upgrade costs in determining penalty fee withdrawals as well as the timelines for cluster studies and applications. On June 21, 2024, CAISO filed an answer to the Shell Companies limited protest, asserting that it has proposed to use the existing timelines previously accepted by the Commission to ensure sufficient review and data validation for interconnection requests, and that its revision to the definition of the term maximum cost responsibility should be retained. Agenda item E-1 may be an order on the Order No. 2023 compliance filing by CAISO.
E-2 – El Paso Electric Company (Docket No. ER24-1868-000). On April 30, 2024, El Paso Electric Company (EPE) submitted a compliance filing, pursuant to Order No. 2023 and Order No. 2023-A, with respect to proposed revisions to Attachment M of its effective Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). In the compliance filing, EPE stated that the proposed OATT language includes minor variations from the pro forma LGIP, LGIA, SGIP, and SGIP or contains clarifications to provisions approved by the Commission in prior proceedings, either relating to EPE or other transmission providers. On July 12, 2024, Enchantment Solar LLC (Enchantment) filed a limited protest, namely citing the proposed withdrawal penalties for interconnection customers with existing LGIAs as unreasonable deviations from the pro forma LGIP. On July 19, 2024, EPE filed an answer to the July 12 protest, stating that Enchantment provided a hypothetical calculation of a potential withdrawal penalty and the Order No. 2023 compliance filing proceeding is not the appropriate venue to resolve such a matter. On September 10, 2024, EPE filed a motion for expedited consideration of the Order No. 2023 compliance filing. Agenda item E-2 may be an order on the Order No. 2023 compliance filing by EPE.
E-3 – Public Service Company of Colorado (Docket No. ER24-2030-000). On May 16, 2024, Xcel Energy Services Inc. (XES), on behalf of Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), submitted a compliance filing, pursuant to Order No. 2023 and Order No. 2023-A, with respect to proposed revisions to Attachments N and P of its effective OATT. In the compliance filing, PSCo stated that it incorporated many directives furnished in Order No. 2023 but also had been working for years prior to remedy existing interconnection queue backlogs and related issues, such that it seeks to retain certain provisions it recently adopted—stemming from internal reforms implemented in 2019 and 2023, respectively—on readiness requirements. On June 6, 2024, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) filed a limited protest, asserting that PSCo did not sufficiently demonstrate that its proposals to deviate from the pro forma LGIP are just and reasonable, specifically regarding the commercial readiness requirements and deposits, withdrawal penalties, and modifications to cluster request windows. Also on June 6, 2024, Interwest Energy Alliance (Interwest) filed a protest, stating that the financial security readiness requirement is patently excessive as compared to the approach outlined in Order No. 2023. On June 21, 2024, PSCo filed an answer to the SEIA and Interwest protests, contending that the provisions raised in those protests were the result of the 2023 reforms it had effectuated and that it would be a “step backwards” to nullify such components of the interconnection queue process. Agenda item E-3 may be an order on the Order No. 2023 compliance filing by PSCo.
E-4 – PacifiCorp (Docket Nos. ER24-2017-000, ER24-2017-001). On May 15, 2024, PacifiCorp submitted a compliance filing, pursuant to Order No. 2023 and Order No. 2023-A, with respect to proposed revisions to its effective OATT. In the compliance filing, PacifiCorp stated that its current OATT already substantially complies with the directives set forth in Order No. 2023, particularly in utilizing a cluster study approach, and that other proposed revisions that deviate from the pro forma language are just and reasonable. Namely, PacifiCorp referenced a series of reforms—implemented in 2020 and 2022, respectively—that implemented the cluster study process as well as other revisions that sought to improve the interconnection queue process. PacifiCorp reiterated that, in the compliance filing, it would incorporate “the majority” of provisions outlined in Order No. 2023. Multiple stakeholders filed limited comments or protests, typically raising the issue of projects currently in a cluster that would be required to enter the transition process (i.e., if it is determined that projects in an existing cluster require a new Facilities Study Agreement) and potentially delay the competition of the 2023 cluster. On September 23, 2024, PacifiCorp submitted a supplement to its compliance filing, in order to clarify the application of the transition process to the small generator interconnection requests currently being processed under the effective OATT. PacifiCorp stated that, as long as the interconnection customer completes a transitional cluster study agreement and maintains exclusive site control, such projects will be placed in the transition process automatically. Agenda item E-4 may be an order on the Order No. 2023 compliance filing and supplement by PacifiCorp.
E-5 – Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company and Mississippi Power Company (Docket No. ER24-1411-001). On March 5, 2024, Southern Company Services, Inc., on behalf of Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company (collectively, the Southern Companies), submitted a compliance filing, pursuant to Order No. 2023 and Order No. 2023-A, with respect to proposed revisions to the Southern Companies’ respective OATTs. In the compliance filing, the Southern Companies stated that certain revisions are re-proposed in accordance with prior orders approved by the Commission or are proposed changes to the pro forma documents responsive to Order No. 2023. Multiple stakeholders filed limited comments or protests, typically raising the issue that the proposed revisions “largely reflect” the scope of Order No. 2023 but that certain proposed revisions fall beyond the scope of the order or were not contemplated by the Commission. On May 16, 2024, the Southern Companies submitted a supplement to its compliance filing, in order to clarify the “limited number of additional revisions” consistent or superior to the pro forma documents. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the Order No. 2023 compliance filing and supplement by the Southern Companies.
E-6 – Southern California Edison Company (Docket No. AC25-51-000). On February 3, 2025, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) submitted a request for approval to exclude certain short-term debt from the calculation of the rate for Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) as applied to Construction Work in Progress. In the request, SCE stated that its primary rate jurisdictional body, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), had directed the application of the rate as requested. Additionally, SCE averred that excluding this portion of the debt would be consistent with Order No. 561 as issued by the Commission, where the AFUDC formula assigned short-term debt as the first source of construction financing. On February 24, 2025, the California Department of Water Resources State Water Project and the Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton, Pasadena, and Riverside, California filed a protest, contending that the request contradicts the Commission’s rule that short-term debt amounts should be included in the AFUDC rate calculation even when the debt is use-restricted. The protest also stated that SCE did not furnish sufficient information for the Commission to evaluate the potential adverse impact on customer rates. Agenda item E-6 may be an order on the request by SCE.
E-7 – 90FI 8me LLC (Docket No. TX25-2-000). On February 27, 2025, 90FI 8me LLC submitted an application, pursuant to Section 211 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and Section 9.3.3 of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Transmission Owner Tariff (SDG&E TO Tariff), with respect to a proposed solar photovoltaic system and battery energy storage project. Specifically, the application requested authorization from the Commission in order to provide interconnection and transmission services under the terms and conditions of the Transmission Control Agreement between SDG&E and CAISO, the SDG&E TO Tariff, The Fifth Replacement FERC Electric Tariff of CAISO, and the LGIA among 90FI 8me LLC, SDG&E, and CAISO. The application stated that, under Section 211 of the FPA, SDG&E must waive its rights to a request for service in order to preserve its tax-exempt status of “local furnishing” bonds (i.e., relief for otherwise nonqualified use of facilities, such as interconnection and transmission by utilities at the request of other entities, by proceeds of tax-exempt bonds issued prior to a Commission order). 90FI 8me LLC confirmed that SDG&E does not object to providing the requested interconnection and transmission. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the application by 90FI 8me LLC.
E-8 – Compass Energy Storage LLC (Docket No. TX25-4-000). On March 20, 2025, Compass Energy Storage LLC (Compass) submitted an application, pursuant to Section 211 of the FPA and Section 9.3.3 of the SDG&E TO Tariff, with respect to a proposed battery energy storage project. Specifically, the application requested authorization from the Commission in order to provide interconnection and transmission services under the terms and conditions of the Transmission Control Agreement between SDG&E and CAISO, the SDG&E TO Tariff, The Fifth Replacement FERC Electric Tariff of CAISO, and the LGIA among Compass, SDG&E, and CAISO. The application stated that, under Section 211 of the FPA, SDG&E must waive its rights to a request for service in order to preserve its tax-exempt status of “local furnishing” bonds (i.e., relief for otherwise nonqualified use of facilities, such as interconnection and transmission by utilities at the request of other entities, by proceeds of tax-exempt bonds issued prior to a Commission order). Compass confirmed that SDG&E does not object to providing the requested interconnection and transmission. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on the application by Compass.
E-9 – ITC Midwest LLC (Docket No. ER25-334-001). On November 1, 2024, ITC Midwest LLC (ITC Midwest) submitted a Distribution-Transmission Interconnection Agreement (DTIA), pursuant to Section 205 of the FPA, between ITC Midwest and the Northeast Missouri Electric Power Cooperative (NEP). In the filing, ITC Midwest stated the DTIA furnishes the terms to which NEP will interconnect its distribution system with the ITC Midwest transmission system. The DTIA was submitted as unexecuted, without NEP as signatory, due to certain disputed provisions. According to ITC Midwest, the disputed provisions include the exclusion of two interconnection facilities as well as the allowance of new interconnection or connection facilities in the future if mutually agreed to by both parties. On November 22, 2024, NEP filed a protest, contending that limited revisions to the DTIA are necessary in order to assure that it would have access to alternative transmission service on an emergency or urgent basis without impacting the reliability and/or costs borne by the other customers of ITC Midwest. On December 31, 2024, the Commission issued an order accepting the unexecuted DTIA. The Commission found that the disputed provisions were not unduly discriminatory or preferential because they would prevent one party from unilaterally, and without notice, modifying its connection facilities or adding new points of interconnection in a way that could materially impact the operation of the interconnection facilities or system of the other party. On January 30, 2025, NEP filed a request for rehearing or clarification of the December 31 order, alleging that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously by, among other concerns, failing to address the potential impacts to system reliability. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the rehearing request by NEP.
E-10 – Red Hills AssetCo LLC (Docket No. EL25-56-000). On February 11, 2025, Red Hills AssetCo LLC (Red Hills) submitted a petition for declaratory order, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission and Order No. 888, seeking authorization from the Commission determining that its portfolio of electric distribution assets located wholly in the state of New Mexico are not subject to Commission jurisdiction. In the petition, Red Hills stated that the distribution assets were built, designed, and exist for the sole purpose of delivering electricity to specific natural gas facility customers in New Mexico for end-use consumption. Red Hills stated that, according to the criteria established by the Commission through the Seven-Factor Test and the Mansfield Test, the facilities are distribution assets only and, accordingly, are non-jurisdictional. Agenda item E-10 may be an order on the petition by Red Hills.
Hydro
H-1 – Desert Bloom Energy Storage LLC (Docket No. P-15364-001). On June 14, 2024, Desert Bloom Energy Storage LLC (Desert Bloom) submitted an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to Part I of the FPA, with respect to the proposed Desert Bloom Energy Storage Project, a 500 MW facility to be located in Nevada. The proposed project is identical to the closed loop pumped storage project that had been the subject of a prior proceeding, whereupon the Commission terminated the proceeding on April 18, 2024 due to a failure to file an initial study report by March 29, 2024. Accordingly, Desert Bloom requested that the Commission allow this application to continue from the stage of the prior application, such that Desert Bloom can undertake the studies most recently identified in that process via the Study Plan Determination issued on November 10, 2022. On January 31, 2025, the Commission issued a letter order denying the successive preliminary permit application, finding that Desert Bloom did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or factors beyond its control prevented it from filing a license application during its prior permit term. On February 6, 2025, Desert Bloom filed a request for rehearing of the January 31 letter order. Agenda item H-1 may be an order on the rehearing request by Desert Bloom.
Flannery Sockwell (Law Clerk, Washington, DC) contributed to the development of this publication.
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2025 White & Case LLP
