The following proceedings that we've been following for some time are on FERC's agenda for Tuesday, November 20.  

AEP's Three Year Update of its Market Based Rates

As you may recall, in August, 2000, AEP filed its triennial market based rates review with FERC.  On September 21, 2000 and again on October 20, 2000, EPMI protested that filing, arguing that AEP has market power in transmission so it should not be permitted to continue charging market based rates for wholesale power sales.  Now, 15 months later, FERC is planning to act on the filing.

"Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorizations"

This proceeding may be linked to the AEP proceeding, although the two are listed separately on FERC's agenda.  While we are not certain what FERC intends to do in this docket, they could be opening up a new investigation into all market based rate authorizations, including non-utility generators and power marketers.  We will monitor this closely and let you know about the proceeding as soon as we learn about it on Tuesday.

Bangor Hydro vs. ISO NE

Bangor Hydro filed a complaint against ISO NE on June 15, 2001 arguing that, due to a design flaw in the electronic dispatch, the ISO should reset the Energy Clearing Prices that were impacted by this design flaw from December 9, 2001 through the end of March.  The ISO opposes Bangor's complaint, stating that it cannot reset prices pursuant to Market Rule 15 unless there was a specific, identifiable error and the ISO posted notice of the error within a certain time period after the error is detected.

New York ISO Extension of Automated Mitigation Procedures

The NYISO filed to extend its AMP until October 31, 2002.  Many parties oppose the extension, others support it.

New England ISO ICAP Proceeding

The Commission issued an order on August 28 regarding the ICAP deficiency charge.  Several parties sought rehearing.  The proceeding on the agenda may be the Commission's order on those rehearing requests.

ConEd's In City Mitigation

ConEd filed to extend the in-city mitigation procedures through October 31, 2002.  Several parties protested, others support it.

Maine PUC v. ISO NE; UI v. ISO NE; Bangor Hydro v. ISO NE

Several entities (Maine PUC, UI, and Bangor Hydro) filed complaints against ISO NE in August, 2000 arguing that the ISO should restate the $6,000 Energy Clearing Price that occurred on May 8, 2000.  18 months later, it looks like FERC may be ready to act on these complaints.

HQ Energy v. NYISO

HQ filed a compliant against the NYISO on December 12, 2000 arguing that the ISO erroneously restated the energy market clearing price for May 8, 2000.  The Commission may be ready to act on this complaint as well.

Because the New England complaints and HQ complaint all relate to the high energy prices that occurred on May 8, 2000, and whether the ISOs should have restated those prices, it is likely that the Commission will rule the same way in each of the proceedings (either that the ISO should have reset the prices or shouldn't have).

Reliant and Mirant v. CAISO

On October 18, 2001, Reliant and Mirant filed a complaint against the ISO arguing that the ISO is giving preferential treatment to the DWR and CERS and is not following the OOM tariff provisions.  EPMI submitted comments in support of the complaint.  The case is on the Commission's agenda for Tuesday.