By Michael Brooks and William Opalka

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said last week that the single-step discounted cash flow (DCF) analyses that it formerly used are adequate to support rate complaints made before it changed the rules.

FERC made the assertion in denying requests by Xcel Energy and the New England Transmission Owners that it reconsider its orders establishing hearing and settlement judge proceedings in return on equity (ROE) disputes.

The rulings involved complaints that sought to reduce the New England TOs’ ROE (EL13-33 & EL14-86-001) and two ROE disputes between Xcel’s Southwestern Public Service Co. (SPS) and Golden Spread Electric Cooperative (EL13-78 & EL12-59).

Opinion 531

Golden Spread has two agreements with SPS: a power purchase agreement with a 10.25% return on equity (ROE) and a transmission agreement with an 11.27% ROE. In April 2012, Golden Spread filed a complaint with FERC, using a single-step DCF analysis to show that SPS’s ROE in both agreements should be reduced to 9.15%. The co-op filed another complaint in July 2013 using more recent data but again asserting the 9.15% ROE.

Xcel and the New England TOs contended that the old, one-step DCF methodology is not valid because of the commission’s June 2014 ruling Opinion 531, which changed its DCF methodology to a two-step process it has long used for natural gas and oil pipelines that incorporates long-term growth rates. The commission issued Opinion 531 on the same day it ordered the hearing proceedings in the Golden Spread complaints. (See FERC Splits over ROE.)

FERC disagreed, saying that both Xcel and the New England TOs misinterpreted the commission’s findings regarding the one-step DCF methodology in Opinion 531. The commission did not find that the one-step DCF methodology was inadequate, FERC said Thursday. “Rather, the commission found that, given the evolution of the electric industry, it had become more appropriate to use the two-step DCF methodology to determine what ROE to set as a public utility’s ROE.”

“That the two-step DCF methodology ‘is preferable to the one-step DCF methodology’ for ultimately setting a public utility’s ROE does not preclude the commission from relying on DCF studies using the one-step DCF methodology” in complaints made prior to Opinion 531, FERC said.

Golden Spread vs. SPS

FERC also disagreed with Xcel’s assertion that Golden Spread’s July 2013 complaint only served to extend the maximum 15-month refund-effective period for its April 2012 complaint. Golden Spread filed the later complaint the day before the first complaint’s refund period expired.

“Golden Spread filed two separate complaints, based on different facts, thereby commencing two separate proceedings,” FERC said. It noted that though both of Golden Spread’s analyses determined a 9.15% figure, this was a median ROE produced from different ranges: 7.51 to 10.59% in 2012 and 6.37 to 11.51% in 2013. Therefore, “we expect the parties in this case to litigate a separate ROE for each refund period,” the commission said.

New England TOs

The New England TOs had cited the use of the single-step DCF as one of their grounds for seeking rehearing of FERC’s orders on two ROE challenges: the commission’s June 2014 order on a December 2012 complaint (EL13-33) and its November 2014 order on a July 2014 complaint filed by a different group of complainants (EL14-86).

Both complaints alleged that the New England TOs’ 11.14% base ROE was unjust and unreasonable.

In addition to dismissing objections to the single-step DCF analysis, the commission also rejected the New England TOs’ argument that the commission erred in EL13-33 because the ROE that the complainants sought to change was already within the commission’s “zone of reasonableness.”

The commission disagreed. “The zone of reasonableness produced by a DCF analysis does not create a zone of immunity for a utility’s ROE. Showing that a utility’s existing ROE is unjust and unreasonable ‘merely requires showing that the commission’s ROE methodology now produces a numerical value below the existing numerical value.’ Therefore, the commission appropriately concluded that [the complainants] made a prima facie showing that New England TOs’ 11.14% base ROE might be unjust and unreasonable.”