In the interests of full disclosure, we should note that we are not neutral observers of
eminent domain abuse in this area. Morriss’s wife’s parents, wife, brother-inlaw, and sister-in-law are involved in proceedings contesting the valuation of a power transmission easement across property held by a family limited partnership in Kimble County, Texas, in which they are represented by Barron & Adler. As a result, none of us feels particularly charitable toward utilities that make use of eminent domain for acquisition of power line corridors.

We argue that eminent domain laws need to be reformed to address these problems. The simplest reform is to eliminate eminent domain from LIEs entirely, forcing utilities to negotiate easement terms in arm’s length transactions and leveling the playing field between the utilities and landowners. Because the burdened landowners are a dispersed and unorganized interest group, while utilities have considerable political clout, this may be
unobtainable through the political process in many states. Similarly, the even more potent “bootleggers and Baptists” coalition of utilities and environmental pressure groups, which
back expansion of transmission lines for renewable energy, if not natural gas or oil pipelines, mobilize powerful interests behind
maintaining the power.

Much of the growth is likely to involve the use of eminent domain because utilities and
governments often consider eminent domain to be a cheaper and easier alternative to negotiating with potentially resistant, unhappy landowners for the acquisition of property.

 For example, providing courts (and other third parties with roles in eminent domain proceedings) with the opportunity to alter the easement terms proposed by utilities for LIEs would serve as an important step toward solving many of the problems we describe. In addition, states and the federal government can take further steps to improve the LIE acquisition process by gathering and disseminating market data to, and providing greater statutory guidance for, valuation
decisions.

...the Commission concludes that, as courts have recognized, retail customers may file complaints and protest transmission rates and wholesale sales rates before the Commission.  Moreover, allowing retail customers to challenge such rates does not violate principles of federalism or interfere with states’ rights.

(1)  Shouldn’t section 306 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) be interpreted
in pari materia with section 201 of the FPA?  FPA section 201 gives the Commission jurisdiction over wholesale interstate rates and interstate transmission; therefore, retail ratepayers would not have the right to file complaints against wholesale rates.

(2) Wouldn’t an expansive interpretation of section 306 of the FPA (allowing retail ratepayers or end users to file complaints against interstate wholesale rates) violate the delicate balance of federalism; in other words, by giving complaint authority to retail rate customers, is the Commission interfering with states’ rights by asserting jurisdiction over retail rates?

answer the questions as follows: 
(1) “retail ratepayers are not permitted to bring an FPA section 205 complaint against wholesale sellers of electricity[;]” and (2) a different interpretation (i.e., allowing such retail ratepayer complaints) “would interfere with state jurisdiction over retail rates.”

Complaints may be filed under sections 206 and/or 306 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 824e, 825e (2012).  While section 205(e) of the FPA refers to “complaints,” 16 U.S.C. § 824d(e) (2012), the Commission commonly refers to these filings as protests.  See 18 C.F.R. § 385.211 (2015).   

The plain language of the FPA and the Commission’s implementing regulations allow broad participation in proceedings before the Commission.  Specifically,
section 306 of the FPA explicitly authorizes “[a]ny person” to file a complaint with
the Commission. The Commission’s regulations are to a similar effect.  For example, Rule 206(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedures provides that “[a]ny person may file a complaint seeking Commission action against any other person alleged to be in contravention or violation of any statute, rule, order, or other law administered by the Commission or for any other alleged wrong over which the Commission may have jurisdiction.

Ms. Peine, an intervenor in this proceeding, is contesting the SWEPCO/AEP transmission formula rate inputs, and thus rates for transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce, which is within the Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction under Part II of the FPA.  These transmission inputs, i.e., costs, flow through to Ms. Peine’s retail electric bill.  Stated another way, Ms. Peine is an “end-use customer that will pay  . . . some portion of that [transmission] rate when flowed through [her] retail bill.” Thus, by challenging the transmission formula rate inputs, Ms. Peine has alleged injury in fact that can only be addressed by the Commission.  Under these facts, Ms. Peine is permitted to file a protest or a complaint and to participate in this proceeding by intervening.

This outcome is consistent with federalism.  Section 201 of the FPA recognizes the authority of the states over retail sales and facilities used in “local distribution.”  Ms. Peine’s formal challenges, however, go to the transmission formula rate inputs identified in the SWEPCO/AEP 2013 and 2014 Annual Updates.  Ms. Peine’s claims, therefore, go to the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and not to local distribution

Moreover, this issue is not a matter of first impression, as both the courts and the Commission have concluded previously that protecting consumers is one of the Commission’s primary responsibilities.

...the relevant definition of “interested parties” under the SWEPCO/AEP Protocols is not the version that was filed in 2007, but rather the version that was in effect when Ms. Peine filed her formal challenges under the Protocols, and that version did not include the examples that the Settlement Judge construed as limiting the definition of interested parties to exclude Ms. Peine.  Moreover, we disagree with the Settlement Judge’s interpretation of the parenthetical phrase in the earlier version of the SWEPCO/AEP Protocols.  The parenthetical phrase “(e.g., Transmission customers and affected state and federal regulatory authorities)” provided examples of categories of interested parties, and should not be read as exhaustive.  This parenthetical language would not preclude an end-use customer, like Ms. Peine, who will pay a portion of the transmission rate in her retail bill, from challenging the inputs to the SWEPCO/AEP transmission formula rate.

Lastly, as to the administrative efficiency concerns raised by the Settlement Judge and AEP, we note that the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure provide appropriate measures to streamline Commission proceedings.

I urge you to make the concepts described in this book a regular point of reference for the manner in which you carry out your work and the treatment of others.

After all, both involve transporting energy from one place to another; both require the taking of right-of-way from property owners; and both will create relatively few direct and permanent jobs once completed.

Greater transmission reliability: The project increases transmission capacity and grid reliability. This is especially important in light of potential for coal power plant retirements and the lack of inter-regional transmission projects.

...property owners and communities throughout the length of the pipeline would be saddled with the risk of a pipeline leak, break or other mishap.

In March 2009, PJM followed the narrower approach, proposing to pay MLSA to all trades with paid transmission (physical or virtual). In response to that filing, no party suggested that UTC trading would be susceptible to the kind of perverse incentives that the Commission understood could apply to most virtual trades.

No party filed any comments rebutting this contention as to the narrow distribution method, and the Commission accepted it in September 2009. Black Oak Energy, LLC, et al. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 128 FERC ¶ 61,262 (2009).

We would like to invite you and a guest to please join your legislative colleagues and the management of FirstEnergy in West Virginia for one of our legislative dinners.  Company management will be discussing what is happening with the company in your area, and discuss FirstEnergy's legislative priorities.

All events begin with a reception at 6:30 PM and dinner at 7:00 PM.

November 10, 2015 - The Purple Iris, 1956 Winchester Ave., Martinsburg. 

Please RSVP to Sammy Gray, Director, State Affairs, and let me know if you plan to attend and bring a guest.

We look forward to seeing you at one of our events!

Thank you for you interest in meeting with us to discuss legislative issues and to meet our folks.
I would be pleased to meet with you privately at some time, however, the event tomorrow evening is for incumbents only.
Please check your calendar and suggest a few dates that you have available.

In the meantime, there’s still some people out there getting hit with high bills that they can’t afford.

“When we received the bill, I was like 'What has happened? I don’t understand this,'” said Carol Armstrong.

Armstrong requested three years worth of her energy bills after she got hit with an over $3,000 bill. She found out they had estimated her bill for three years except for twice: the month she moved into her house, and the month they charged her over $3,000.

Initially, Consumers Energy told Armstrong she would have to pay an additional $438 to each bill until it was paid off.

“They say it like it’s nothing. I told them well you say that like it’s nothing, but let me ask you question. If you went to your house today and opened your mailbox, and you had a bill in there like that, how would you feel? She said 'I wouldn’t be able to pay it,'” said Armstrong.

That’s when Armstrong contacted the Michigan Public Service Commission who told her she actually had three years to pay it back, the same amount of time they estimated her electric usage.

In addition to airing her jurisdictional and standing concerns, the judge said permitting retail ratepayers to file such complaints "is at odds with promoting efficiency" because FERC could be faced with handling "potentially millions of individual complainants."

The groups, however, insisted that Cintron's position is "contrary to the plain language of the FPA," which states that "any person" has standing to file a complaint with FERC, as well as long-standing commission precedent holding that retail ratepayers have standing to challenge wholesale rates.

Citing a proceeding involving the abandoned Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline project in which FERC found that "[a] complaint regarding a transmission rate can … be filed by any person, including an end-use customer that will pay some portion of that rate when flowed through its retail bill," the groups called Cintron's attempts to distinguish that situation from AEP's "unavailing." The judge relied on differences in the two companies' formula rate protocols to make her case, but the groups argued that "standing is a statutory right under the FPA, and whatever is said in the AEP protocol cannot overturn the statute."

As for Cintron's concerns about the regulatory burden that would be placed on FERC if retail ratepayers are allowed to challenge wholesale rates, the groups insisted that "administrative convenience is not a basis to eviscerate a statutory right." They said that "[i]n any event, this is a chimera — in the nearly 20 years since the commission issued Order 888, there has been a stream but not a deluge of … rate challenges."

Finally, among other things, the groups said the "novel viewpoint" expressed by Cintron "would reopen the … regulatory gap between federal and state jurisdiction that the FPA was designed to close."

"For consumers impacted by commission-jurisdictional transmission rates, there is no other effective remedy," the groups said.

Should retail electricity customers be barred from bringing cases before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a decades-long practice? A FERC administrative law judge, Carmen Citron, last month recommended to the commission that it abandon its long-standing practice and deny retail customers standing before the agency.

Cintron’s mid-October recommendation came in a case involving an Arkansas lawyer, school teacher and activist (ER07-1069-006), Martha Peine of Eureka Springs, Ark. She challenged expenses AEP subsidiary Southwestern Electric Power Co. charged to consumers in lobbying for a new interstate power line. She argued at FERC that SWEPCO had stuck customers with some $92,000 in expenses that were improper. Her filing was under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA).

challenged Cintron’s reasoning as flipping “the fundamental purpose of the FPA on its head.”

Elcon asserted, “The purpose of the FPA is not to protect utilities from the burden of responding to consumers; rather, as the Supreme Court and other courts have recognized, it is ‘to protect power consumers against excessive prices.’”

Whether retail customers can continue their historic right to access to FERC also has political implications for the commission. In recent months, anti-natural gas activists have staged demonstrations at commission meetings, including interrupting proceedings (resulting in guard-escorted exits from FERC’s D.C. headquarters). The protesters have argued, often at high volume, that FERC cares only for the interests of big energy companies, and not those of people affected by the agency’s actions.

The commission has repeatedly said, as it opens its monthly public meetings, that it will consider arguments and protests to its activities from anybody, through normal FERC proceedings, including filings. Should the commission adopt Cintron’s recommendations, those statements will ring administratively and politically hollow.

The Clean Power Link is entirely underwater or underground.

The line will originate at the U.S.-Canadian border and travel approximately 97 miles underwater down Lake Champlain to Benson, Vt., and then be buried along town and state roads and railroad rights-of-way or on land owned by TDI New England for approximately 57 miles to a new converter station to be built in Ludlow, Vt.

The Clean Power Link encountered minimal public resistance in Vermont because of the burial of the line.

“It is well recognized in the industry that siting is one of the most difficult facets of building new energy infrastructure,” said Susan Schibanoff with Responsible Energy Action. “NECPL dealt with that issue first by creating solid community and political support with a fully buried line. It has clearly paid off in terms of the record speed with which they have moved ahead.”