On May 4, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “DC Circuit”) vacated and remanded a decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or the “Commission”) requiring the California Independent System Operator (“CAISO”) to alter its open access transmission tariff to comply with FERC’s station-power netting requirements.  [Read more →]

On May 5, 2010, the United States Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) released a report, “U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2009: A Retrospective Review,” showing the largest decrease in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions since EIA started collecting emissions data in 1949.  The seven percent drop (405 million metric tons) in 2009 is a stark contrast to the consistent increase in emissions throughout the 1990s. [Read more →]

On April 26, 2010, the Department of Energy (“DOE”) released its 2009 National Transmission Congestion Study, eliminating New England and central Arizona as “congested areas of concern.” [Read more →]

On April 29, 2010, FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NOPR”) proposing to remove the price cap for transmission customers who reassign transmission capacity beyond October 1, 2010.  [Read more →]

On May 4, 2010, the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”) filed a response with FERC regarding PJM’s amendments to the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”).  PJM was responding to protests and defended releasing data on the region’s reliability pricing model (“RPM”) auction.  [Read more →]

After months of anticipation, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) released its 563-page proposal for regulating the disposal and management of coal combustion byproducts (“CCBs”) from coal-fired power plants.  Instead of offering a single approach, EPA requested comments on two options for regulating CCBs.  The first would regulate CCBs as a new “special waste” subject to many of the requirements for hazardous waste, while the second would regulate CCBs in a manner similar to typical solid waste, subject to far fewer and less stringent environmental requirements.  EPA would lead the first approach, the various States the second.  Either of EPA’s proposed options represents a seismic shift toward more comprehensive and expensive requirements for CCBs disposal and management.  And for certain utilities, EPA’s regulatory proposal effectively signals the end of ash pond disposal for CCBs. [Read more →]