By Michael Brooks

WASHINGTON — FERC said last week it is streamlining its rehearing orders and creating a dedicated legal team within the Office of General Counsel to handle them.

The group, housed in OGC’s Solicitor’s Office, will produce shorter orders focusing on new arguments raised by petitioners, rather than chronicling the history of the case and reiterating the commission’s positions on arguments addressed in the original rulings.

“We are hopeful that the creation of the rehearings group, coupled with the more streamlined approach to rehearing orders, will allow the commission to more efficiently process requests for rehearing, which in turn will further the public interest,” Deputy Solicitor Robert Kennedy, who will head the new unit, said in a presentation at the commission’s open meeting.

Previously, requests for rehearing were assigned to lawyers who drafted the original orders and who also handle other matters, some with legal deadlines, Kennedy said. The new group, consisting of attorneys not involved in the original orders, will partner with subject matter experts while providing a “fresh set of eyes” on its decisions, Kennedy said.

“We anticipate that the primary role of the rehearing group will be to make sure that the commission has … fulfilled its legal obligation to articulate the connection between the facts found and the choice made, and to respond meaningfully to legitimate objections raised by the parties before it,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy said the new group doesn’t have any metrics regarding the backlog of rehearing requests and is still getting a sense of the workload and how much staffing will be needed. Chairman Norman Bay told reporters the group had just been staffed up the week prior.

“Ultimately… our metric will be how we do in the Court of Appeals,” Kennedy said.

Due Process

Bay, a former federal prosecutor, pointed to the appeals process in the courts as a model for the new process. “When there’s a petition for rehearing, virtually every single court in the country decides on a summary basis unless there’s some new claim that has been raised,” he told reporters. “And that certainly comports with due process. The commission, though, historically has not done this.”

Even if the arguments raised in a rehearing request are the same as in the original filing, FERC has written a “fulsome” order responding to those claims. “I don’t know how efficient that is from an administrative perspective,” he said.

Bay wants FERC to focus on anything different that’s been raised in a rehearing request. A claim can’t be entirely new, as new evidence or information cannot be introduced in a rehearing request. “But if there’s some variation of an argument that’s already been raised, that truly has not been considered by the commission, then we ought to be focusing on that, as opposed to reiterating what might have been said earlier,” Bay said.

The chairman said that the change was not prompted by any specific case or cases.

Complaints in federal court about the amount of time FERC takes in issuing orders on rehearing requests have never been successful, according to FERC.

“The commission always strives to examine what it’s doing and, when appropriate, looks to build upon what it’s doing and to improve what it’s doing,” Bay said. “And I think that this effort reflects this approach. We already do a good job, in my view, with respect to rehearings.”

“I certainly expect that parties before the commission will appreciate the effort to get rehearing orders out more quickly,” Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur said. “I’m certainly going to be paying particular attention to these orders especially in the first few months to ensure we properly balance clarity and efficiency.”

A New Look

Kennedy presented the first two rehearing orders under the new process: one denying rehearing of FERC’s decision to suspend for five months GenOn Energy Management’s proposed reactive power tariffs (ER15-2571, et al.) and another denying rehearing of its decision to prohibit Alliance Pipeline from removing authorized overrun service from its rate schedule (RP15-1022).

As promised, the orders are much more concise than the usual rehearing order, omitting lengthy sections that explain the full procedural history of the case, including all the protests and comments filed by intervening parties. The Alliance order is a mere one page, simply reading: “Alliance’s request raises no matter warranting any modification of [FERC’s original November 2015 order]. Nor does it warrant any further comment on rehearing. Accordingly, the request for rehearing is denied.”

The GenOn order, while longer, is still a brief six pages. “The format, rather than the substance, of the draft order is notable,” Kennedy told the commission.

FERC accepted GenOn’s revenue requirements for reactive power service from several of its power plants but suspended them until March 31. The company requested rehearing based on this provision, as well as the commission’s decision to refer the matter to its Office of Enforcement.

The order summarizes this background in two paragraphs before coming to the commission’s determination, which focuses exclusively on these two issues. The commission explained its methodology for setting the five-month suspension period, as well as citing the broad discretion afforded to it by the courts to determine these periods. It also said that it referred the request to Enforcement because it found the company may have continued to receive payments for reactive service from plants no longer capable of providing it.

The order concludes bluntly, “As to the request for clarification, we see no need to further clarify our underlying order beyond what we have stated herein.”