Advertisement

May 22, 2013

Asking FERC to open an investigation, Congressman questions investment decisions

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich of the 10th District of Ohio has written to the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) urging that an investigation be initiated with regard to various operational and commercial arrangements associated with the Prairie State Generating Company, the owner of a newly-constructed coal fired plant in Marissa, Illinois. Citing undisclosed “problems with the financial stability and the long-term reliability of the plant”, he specifically calls out for review the arrangements between the plant and its public power owners, including American Municipal Power, and the members of such owners, such as Cleveland Public Power. 

He notes that the price of electricity from the plant exceeds initial estimates and exceeds the open market price, and characterizes the plant as a liability rather than an asset. He alludes malfeasance in stating that “the cost increases were mostly foreseeable and preventable had the sellers or buyers [sic] provided full disclosure and/or done their due diligence.” At the same time as he cites foreseeable risks, he notes that construction defects occurred and operational problems have arisen and affected costs. He further accuses Peabody Energy Corporation, a 5% owner of the facility and the owner of an associated mine and ashfill, of poor management of both the mine and the ashfill. First and foremost, however, he asserts that new coal plants are a bad financial risk. 

He asks that any FERC investigation include whether the public power agencies that have an ownership interest in or are offtakers from the plant are in compliance with FERC regulations regarding outage reporting, whether the plant is complying with MISO and PJM bidding rules, and how the costs and certain power resources are allocated between the public power entities. His letter provides no basis for the connection between these concerns and his overall concern that an investment in this coal plant was a raw deal for Midwest ratepayers, nor does he explain what jurisdiction FERC has over the public power agencies. 

Investigations as to rates, charges and practices of public utilities are governed by Section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), which requires the complainant or FERC to bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that any existing rate, charge, classification, rule, regulation, practice, or contract is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential. The public power entities are not public utilities pursuant to the FPA.

© 2013 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

About the Author

Partner

Sandy Rizzo is a partner in the firm's Energy Regulatory Group. Her clients primarily include electric utilities, power marketers, independent power producers, and investment and hedge funds owning securities of electric utility holding companies.  She assists clients in litigated proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state and federal courts; advocates regarding the development of and changes to federal regulatory policies, regulations and rules applicable to the electric industry; and advises clients regarding regulatory compliance and...

202.828.5858

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.