By Michael Kuser
A FERC administrative law judge ruled Tuesday that municipal utilities and commission staff failed to prove that the New England Transmission Owners’ (NETOs) base return on equity of 10.57% (11.74% with incentives) is unjust and unreasonable, rebuffing requests to reduce it.
The March 27 initial decision by ALJ Steven A. Glazer found that the discounted cash flow (DCF) analyses by the complainants — the Eastern Massachusetts Consumers-Owned Systems (EMCOS) — and FERC staff were “fatally defective” because they failed to include Algonquin Power & Utilities in their proxy groups, “despite this company’s ample qualifications to be included” (EL16-64-002).
The EMCOS, whose case was supported by state regulators and industrial consumers, asked FERC in a April 2016 complaint to reduce the NETOs’ base ROE to 8.93% or lower (11.24% with incentives). It was the fourth challenge since September 2011 to the ROE for the NETOs, which include Emera Maine, Northeast Utilities, Central Maine Power, National Grid and NextEra Energy. (See FERC Denies New England Tx Owners ROE Rehearing.)
The 2011 challenge resulted in FERC lowering the base ROE to 10.57% from 11.14% in 2014. But the ruling was vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last April, which found that the commission failed to prove the higher rate was unjust and unreasonable, as required before setting a new rate (Emera Maine et al. v. FERC). (See Court Rejects FERC ROE Order for New England.)
The commission has not responded to the court’s remand.
Setting the Proxy Group
Glazer sided with the NETOs in ruling that the EMCOS’ and staff’s DCF analyses should have included Algonquin because the company pays dividends and operates within the contiguous U.S., and its credit ratings are within the “comparable risk band” for the NETOs. Glazer said FERC staff improperly rejected the company because it is headquartered in Canada and also broke with commission precedent in ignoring the credit ratings of the NETOs’ parent companies.
The EMCOS’ economist rejected Algonquin because it was not included in the Value Line Investment Survey and did not have a five-year Institutional Brokers Estimate System (IBES) earnings growth rate published in Yahoo Finance, the source of earnings growth forecasts used by the commission. IBES later added the company to its ratings; inclusion in the Value Line survey is not required by FERC, the judge said.
Including Algonquin’s IBES-based ROE of 16.14% would significantly alter staff’s and EMCOS’ DCF analyses, making the current 10.57% base ROE within the zone of reasonableness, Glazer said.
“Their zones of reasonableness would shift upward from approximately 6 to 11% to approximately 7 to 16%, and the midpoint of their zones would shift from approximately 8.4% to approximately 11.8%,” Glazer wrote.
Moving the Goal Post
The judge was particularly critical of the EMCOS’ analysis, saying it contained “numerous errors and changed significantly throughout this proceeding,” including on the last day of the hearing in the case. “Both the EMCOS and staff made several unwarranted changes to the commission’s typical DCF analysis,” he said. “In short, the goal post was moved repeatedly by the EMCOS and staff to wherever the football was in order to score points.”
Glazer said he did not need to determine a new ROE because of the inability of staff and the EMCOs to provide reliable analyses that proved the existing rates were not just and reasonable. “The failure of the EMCOS and the staff to meet their burden of proof means that the case is over, because they have produced no DCF analysis that is usable in this case for any purpose.”
He also said that their failure also “renders moot the EMCOS’ further argument that the base and maximum ROEs should be adjusted downward in order to mitigate alleged harm to consumers” caused by the NETOs’ maintenance of equity–heavy capital structures.
Exceptions to the decision are due in 30 days, with objections to the exceptions due 20 days later. If no party objects, the ALJ’s decision would take legal effect without further action by the commission.
That’s unlikely, ClearView Energy Partners said in an analysis of the ruling, which predicted challenges to the inclusion of Algonquin.
Response to Remand
The analysts said FERC could respond to the D.C. Circuit’s remand of the 2014 ruling by opening a Notice of Inquiry or by issuing a revised decision.
“If the remand proceedings ahead for the Emera Maine decision result in the FERC upholding the June 2014 revision of the ROE to 10.57%, then we expect the commission might also affirm the ALJ’s finding here that the most recent complaint fails,” the analysts wrote.
