November 25, 2024
FERC Again Denies Polar Vortex Make-Whole Payments
FERC has denied another generator’s request for make-whole payments for natural gas it purchased that was never used during the event, citing rules against retroactive ratemaking.

By Michael Brooks

The cold weather temperatures produced by the polar vortex of January 2014 continue to haunt FERC.

The commission has denied another generator’s request for $1.3 million in make-whole payments for natural gas it purchased that was never used during the event, citing rules against retroactive ratemaking (ER15-952).

New Jersey Energy Associates, which owns the 290-MW South River combined-cycle plant, said PJM asked that a planned outage for the plant be canceled so it could be available for dispatch on Jan. 27, 2014. The plant purchased $2.7 million worth of gas, having been assured by PJM that it would be compensated for its fuel costs, according to NJEA. The RTO, however, repeatedly canceled the plant’s scheduled start time, forcing it to sell the gas at a $1.3 million loss.

The claims are similar to those of Duke Energy and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative. During the same week as NJEA’s claim, Duke purchased gas for $12.5 million when PJM said that its Lee plant in Illinois would be needed. The plant was never called on, however, and Duke was forced to sell the gas at a loss of $9.8 million. ODEC complained that PJM canceled multiple dispatches that left gas it had purchased unused and that it was due $15 million. (See Duke, ODEC Denied ‘Stranded’ Gas Compensation.)

FERC, however, remained steadfast on its assertion that these kinds of complaints constitute retroactive ratemaking.

“Ratepayers had not received any prior notice of NJEA’s requested relief, which was sought roughly 12 months after the events in question,” the commission said. “We therefore conclude, as we did in the similar Duke and ODEC cases, that the relief sought by NJEA is prohibited by the filed rate doctrine and rule against retroactive ratemaking.”

FERC, however, did find that NJEA was entitled to recover its start-up costs under PJM’s Tariff. The Tariff allows market participants to recover costs related to the start-up of resources offered in the day-ahead energy market if PJM cancels its selection of those resources. While NJEA did not specify how much they would be allowed to recover under this provision in its complaint, it said “this would only be a fraction of its actual unrecovered costs.”

As he did in the Duke and ODEC cases, Commissioner Philip Moeller dissented. He once again noted that PJM is the only grid operator that does not allow its participants to vary their day-ahead energy market offers by hour or update their offers in real time.

As a result of the Duke and ODEC complaints, FERC found that PJM’s Tariff was potentially unjust and unreasonable in this regard and ordered the RTO to make Tariff changes by Nov. 1. While PJM agreed that changes were needed, and it began the stakeholder process to do so, the RTO told the commission in July that it would need until Nov. 1, 2016, to resolve the numerous questions raised by the changes (EL15-73).

“In light of this delay in reforming PJM’s markets,” Moeller argued, “the majority’s repeated failure to guarantee cost recovery for generators acting in good faith to ensure system reliability may regrettably impact reliability during the approaching winter of 2015-2016.”

Energy MarketFERC & Federal

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *