A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously affirmed FERC's orders issuing Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C. a certificate to construct a new compressor station in Minisink, New York, over vigorous opposition from a group of residents. Minisink Residents for Environmental Preservation and Safety v. FERC, No. 12-1481, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15672 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 15, 2014).

The first federal appellate court to address whether the FERC has the authority to order compensation for demand response has concluded that it does not. This follows more than ten years of FERC orders that have allowed demand response(1) to participate and be compensated in FERC-regulated wholesale markets throughout the nation for energy, capacity and ancillary services.

On May 15, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) granted rehearing of its earlier order requiring the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) to remove tariff language that would allow it to take state and local laws and regulations into consideration when selecting a transmission developer to build a transmission project under MISO’s Order No. 1000-compliant regional planning process.(1) In its earlier order, FERC rejected language proposed by MISO that would have allowed MISO to consider state and local laws and regulations granting construction rights or rights of way when determining whether a new transmission project is eligible for MISO’s Order No. 1000 competitive selection process. The Commission’s reversal means that MISO may consider these relevant state and local laws when determining the developer for a new transmission project.

In a meeting held in Houston on April 22-23, NAESB’s Gas-Electric Harmonization (GEH) Forum continued its efforts to forge a consensus of natural gas and electric industry stakeholders in response to FERC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) addressing gas-electric coordination.

On February 24, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied two petitions for a writ of certiorari challenging a lower court’s opinion upholding the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.’s (“MISO”) Multi-Value Project (“MVP”) cost allocation.

On March 11, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("Commission") issued an order approving a Stipulation and Consent Agreement between the Office of Enforcement ("Enforcement") and International Transmission Company d/b/a ITCTransmission ("ITCTransmission"), Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC ("METC"), ITC Midwest LLC ("ITC Midwest"), and ITC Great Plains, LLC ("ITC Great Plains") (collectively, the "ITC Companies") ("Stipulation").

On behalf of clients Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Tesoro Alaska Company, Wright & Talisman, P.C., along with Alaska co-counsel Brena, Bell, & Clarkson, P.C., prevailed on virtually every issue in FERC Administrative Law Judge Carmen Cintron’s Initial Decision, BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., 146 FERC ¶ 63,019 (2014). The decision concerns rates on the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS).

Cost allocation, rates of return on equity, and new rules regarding regional transmission planning are among the most contentious regulatory obstacles to modernizing and expanding the transmission grid. A new and insightful analysis of these issues, authored by two Wright & Talisman attorneys, Michael J. Thompson and Patrick L. Morand, has been published in the American Bar Association's periodical, Infrastructure.