Allegheny Power 2015 Annual Report Download - page 139
Download and view the complete annual report
Please find page 139 of the 2015 Allegheny Power annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.
122
recoveryofthesechargesthroughitsformularate.Onarelatedissue,FirstEnergyjoinedcertainotherPJMtransmissionownersina
protestofMISO'sproposaltoallocateMVPcoststoenergytransactionsthatcrossMISO'sbordersintothePJMRegion.OnJanuary
22,2015,FERCissuedanorderestablishingapaperhearingonremandfromtheSeventhCircuitoftheissueofwhetherany
limitationon"exportpricing"forsalesofenergyfromMISOintoPJMisjustifiedinlightofapplicableFERCprecedent.CertainPJM
transmissionowners,includingFirstEnergy,filedaninitialbriefassertingthatFERC’spriorrulingrejectingMISO’sproposedMVP
exportchargeontransactionsintoPJMwascorrectandshouldbereaffirmedonremand.Thebriefsandrepliestheretoarenow
beforeFERCforconsideration.
Inaddition,inaMay31,2011order,FERCruledthatthecostsforcertain"legacyRTEP"transmissionprojectsinPJMapproved
beforeATSIjoinedPJMcouldbechargedtotransmissioncustomersintheATSIzone.Theamounttobepaid,andthequestionof
derivedbenefits,ispendingbeforeFERCasaresultoftheSeventhCircuit'sJune25,2014orderdescribedaboveunderPJM
TransmissionRates.
Theoutcomeoftheproceedingsthataddresstheremainingopenissuesrelatedtocostsforthe"MichiganThumb"transmission
projectand"legacyRTEP"transmissionprojectscannotbepredictedatthistime.
2014ATSIFormulaRateFiling
OnOctober31,2014,ATSIfiledaproposalwithFERCtochangethestructureofitsformularatefroman“historicallooking”
approach,wheretransmissionratesreflectactualcostsfortheprioryear,toa“forwardlooking”approach,wheretransmissionrates
wouldbebasedontheestimatedcostsforthecomingyear,withanannualtrueup.OnDecember31,2014,FERCissuedanorder
acceptingATSI'sfilingeffectiveJanuary1,2015,subjecttorefundandtheoutcomeofhearingandsettlementproceedings.FERC
subsequentlyissuedanorderonOctober29,2015,acceptingasettlementagreementontheforwardlookingformularate,subjectto
minor compliance requirements.The settlement agreement provides for certain changes toATSI's formula rate template and
protocols,andalsochangesATSI'sROEfrom12.38%tothefollowingvalues:(i)12.38%fromJanuary1,2015throughJune30,
2015(ii)11.06%fromJuly1,2015throughDecember31,2015and(iii)10.38%fromJanuary1,2016,unlesschangedpursuantto
section205or206oftheFPA,providedtheeffectivedateforanychangecannotbeearlierthanJanuary1,2018.
TransferofTransmissionAssetstoMAIT
OnJune10,2015,MAIT,aDelawarelimitedliabilitycompany,wasformedasanewtransmissiononlysubsidiaryofFETforthe
purposesofowningandoperatingallFERCjurisdictionaltransmissionassetsofJCP&L,MEandPNfollowingthereceiptofall
necessarystateandfederalregulatoryapprovals.OnJune19,2015,JCP&L,PN,ME,FET,andMAITmadefilingswithFERC,the
NJBPU,andthePPUCrequestingauthorizationforJCP&L,PNandMEtocontributetheirtransmissionassetstoMAIT.Additionally,
thefilingsrequestedapprovalfromtheNJBPUandPPUC,asapplicable,of:(i)aleasetoMAITofrealpropertyandrightsofway
associatedwiththeutilities'transmissionassets(ii)aMutualAssistanceAgreement(iii)MAITbeingdeemedapublicutilityunder
state law (iv) MAIT's participation in FE's regulated companies' money pool and (v) certain affiliated interest agreements. If
approved,JCP&L,ME,andPNwillcontributetheirtransmissionassetsatnetbookvalueandanallocatedportionofgoodwillinatax
freeexchangetoMAIT,whichwilloperatesimilartoFET'stwoexistingstandalonetransmissionsubsidiaries,ATSIandTrAIL.MAIT's
transmissionfacilitieswillremainunderthefunctionalcontrolofPJM,andPJMwillprovidetransmissionserviceusingthesefacilities
underthePJMTariff.Duringthethirdquarterof2015,FirstEnergyrespondedtoFERCStaff'srequestforadditionalinformation
regardingtheapplication.FERCapprovalisexpectedduringthefirstquarterof2016withfinaldecisionsexpectedfromtheNJBPU
andPPUCbymid2016.FollowingFERCapprovalofthetransfer,MAITexpectstofileaSection204applicationwithFERC,and
othernecessaryfilingswiththePPUCandtheNJBPU,seekingauthorizationtoissueequitytoFET,JCP&L,PNandMEfortheir
respectivecontributions,andtoissuedebt.MAITwillalsomakeaSection205formularateapplicationwithFERCtoestablishits
transmissionrate.SeeNewJerseyandPennsylvaniainStateRegulationaboveforfurtherdiscussionofthistransaction.
CaliforniaClaimsMatters
InOctober2006,severalCaliforniagovernmentalandutilitypartiespresentedAESupplywithasettlementproposaltoresolve
allegedoverchargesforpowersalesbyAESupplytotheCaliforniaEnergyResourceSchedulingdivisionoftheCDWRduring2001.
ThesettlementproposalclaimsthatCDWRisowedapproximately$190millionfortheseallegedovercharges.Thisproposalwas
madeinthecontextofmediationeffortsbyFERCandtheNinthCircuitinseveralpendingproceedingstoresolvealloutstanding
refundandotherclaims,includingclaimsofallegedpricemanipulationintheCaliforniaenergymarketsduring2000and2001.The
NinthCircuithadpreviouslyremandedoneofthoseproceedingstoFERC,whichdismissedtheclaimsoftheCaliforniapartiesinMay
2011.TheCaliforniapartiesappealedFERC'sdecisionbacktotheNinthCircuit.AESupplyjoinedwithotherintervenorsinthecase
andfiledabriefinsupportofFERC'sdismissalofthecase.OnApril29,2015,theNinthCircuitremandedthecasetoFERCfor
furtherproceedings.OnNovember3,2015,FERCsetforhearingandsettlementprocedurestheremandedissueofwhetherany
individual public utility seller’s violation of FERC’s marketbased rate quarterly reporting requirement led to an unjust and
unreasonablerateforthatparticularsellerinCaliforniaduringthe20002001period.SettlementdiscussionsunderaFERCappointed
settlementjudgeareongoing.RequestsforrehearingorclarificationofFERC’sNovember3,2015orderbyvariousparties,including
AESupply,remainpending.
Inanotherproceeding,inMay2009,theCaliforniaAttorneyGeneral,onbehalfofcertainCaliforniaparties,filedacomplaintwith
FERCagainstvarioussellers,includingAESupply,againseekingrefundsfortransactionsintheCaliforniaenergymarketsduring
123
2000and2001.TheabovenotedtransactionswithCDWRarethebasisforincludingAESupplyinthiscomplaint.AESupplyand
otherpartiesfiledmotionstodismiss,whichFERCgranted.TheCaliforniaAttorneyGeneralappealedFERC'sdismissalofits
complainttotheNinthCircuit,whichhasconsolidatedthecasewithotherpendingappealsrelatedtoCaliforniarefundclaims,and
stayedtheproceedingspendingfurtherorder.
Theoutcomeofeitheroftheabovemattersorestimateoflossorrangeoflosscannotbepredictedatthistime.
PATHTransmissionProject
OnAugust24,2012,thePJMBoardofManagerscanceledthePATHproject,aproposedtransmissionlinefromWestVirginia
throughVirginiaandintoMarylandwhichPJMhadpreviouslysuspendedinFebruary2011.AsaresultofPJMcancelingtheproject,
approximately$62millionandapproximately$59millionincostsincurredbyPATHAlleghenyandPATHWV(anequitymethod
investmentforFE),respectively,werereclassifiedfromnetproperty,plantandequipmenttoaregulatoryassetforfuturerecovery.
PATHAlleghenyandPATHWVrequestedauthorizationfromFERCtorecoverthecostswithaproposedROEof10.9%(10.4%base
plus0.5%forRTOmembership)fromPJMcustomersoverfiveyears.FERCissuedanorderdenyingthe0.5%ROEadderforRTO
membershipandallowingthetariffchangesenablingrecoveryofthesecoststobecomeeffectiveonDecember1,2012,subjectto
settlement proceedings and hearing if the parties could not agree to a settlement. On March 24, 2014, the FERC ChiefALJ
terminatedsettlementproceedingsandappointedanALJtopresideoverthehearingphaseofthecase,includingdiscoveryand
additionalpleadingsleadinguptohearing,whichsubsequentlyincludedthepartiesaddressingtheapplicationofFERC'sOpinionNo.
531,discussedbelow,tothePATHproceeding.OnSeptember14,2015,theALJissuedhisinitialdecision,disallowingrecoveryof
certaincosts.TheinitialdecisionandexceptionstheretoarenowbeforeFERCforreviewandafinalorder.FirstEnergycontinuesto
believethecostsarerecoverable,subjecttofinalrulingfromFERC.
FERCOpinionNo.531
OnJune19,2014,FERCissuedOpinionNo.531,inwhichFERCreviseditsapproachforcalculatingthediscountedcashflow
elementofFERC’sROEmethodology,andannouncedthepotentialforaqualitativeadjustmenttotheROEmethodologyresults.
Undertheoldmethodology,FERCusedafiveyearforecastforthedividendgrowthvariable,whereasgoingforwardthegrowth
variablewillconsistoftwoparts:(a)afiveyearforecastfordividendgrowth(2/3weight)and(b)alongtermdividendgrowthforecast
basedonaforecastfortheU.S.economy(1/3weight).Regardingthequalitativeadjustment,forsingleutilityratecasesFERC
formerlypeggedROEatthemedianofthe“zoneofreasonableness”thatcameoutoftheROEformula,whereasgoingforward,
FERCmayrelyonrecordevidencetomakequalitativeadjustmentstotheoutcomeoftheROEmethodologyinordertoreachalevel
sufficient to attract future investment. On October 16, 2014, FERC issued its Opinion No. 531A, applying the revised ROE
methodologytocertainISONewEnglandtransmissionowners,andonMarch3,2015,FERCissuedOpinionNo.531Baffirmingits
priorrulings.AppealsofOpinionNos.531,532Aand531BarependingbeforetheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheD.C.Circuit.
FirstEnergyisevaluatingthepotentialimpactofOpinionNo.531ontheauthorizedROEofourFERCregulatedtransmissionutilities
andthecostofservicewholesalepowergenerationtransactionsofMP.
MISOCapacityPortability
OnJune11,2012,inresponsetocertainargumentsadvancedbyMISO,FERCrequestedcommentsregardingwhetherexisting
rulesontransfercapabilityactasbarrierstothedeliveryofcapacitybetweenMISOandPJM.FirstEnergyandotherpartiessubmitted
filingsarguing thatMISO'sconcernslargely are withoutfoundation, FERC did notmandatea solutionin responsetoMISO's
concerns.AtFERC'sdirection,inMay,2015,PJM,MISO,andtheirrespectiveindependentmarketmonitorsprovidedadditional
informationontheirvariousjointissuessurroundingthePJM/MISOseamtoassistFERC'sunderstandingoftheissuesandwhat,if
any,additionalstepsFERCshouldtaketoimprovetheefficiencyofoperationsatthePJM/MISOseam.Stakeholders,includingFESC
onbehalfofcertainofitsaffiliatesandaspartofacoalitionofcertainotherPJMutilities,filedresponsestotheRTOsubmissions.The
varioussubmissionsandresponsesarenowbeforeFERCforconsideration.
ChangestothecriteriaandqualificationsforparticipationinthePJMRPMcapacityauctionscouldhaveasignificantimpactonthe
outcomeofthoseauctions,includinganegativeimpactonthepricesatwhichthoseauctionswouldclear.
FTRUnderfundingComplaint
InPJM,FTRsareamechanismtohedgecongestionandoperateasafinancialreplacementforphysicalfirmtransmissionservice.
FTRs are financiallysettled instruments that entitle the holder to a stream of revenues based on the hourly congestion price
differencesacrossaspecifictransmissionpathinthePJMDayaheadEnergyMarket.DuetocertainlanguageinthePJMTariff,the
fundsthataresetasidetopayFTRscanbedivertedtootheruses,whichmayresultin“underfunding”ofFTRpayments.On
February15,2013,FESandAESupplyfiledarenewedcomplaintwithFERCforthepurposeofchangingthePJMTarifftoeliminate
FTRunderfunding.OnJune5,2013,FERCissuedanorderdenyingthecomplaint,andonJune8,2015,deniedarequestfor
rehearingoftheJune5,2013order.