Search
`
November 7, 2024

AES Selling Share in Indianapolis Power to Free Up Cash for Environmental Upgrades

By Chris O’Malley

A Québec pension fund has agreed to spend up to $593 million to acquire up to 30% of Indianapolis Power & Light from AES, which is seeking to lighten its share of U.S. utilities as their coal-fired generation in MISO and PJM face increasing environmental pressure.

IPL on Dec. 23 filed for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval on the deal (EC15-56), which also needs an OK from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency group that includes the U.S. Treasury, Department of Energy and State Department.

Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ) will pay $244 million for 15% of AES Investments, an IPL parent company, and contribute up to an additional $349 million for up to 17.65% of IPALCO Enterprises, IPL’s direct parent, based on capital calls.

At the end of the two-step process, CDPQ will have indirect ownership of 15% to 30% of IPL and will be able to nominate two IPALCO directors. AES Investments would nominate nine of the directors.

Environmental Pressures

IPL, which owns about 2,623 MW of coal-fired generation (83% of its total), is scrambling to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and may face compliance expenses under the EPA’s proposed carbon emissions rule. In its earnings report for the second quarter, AES said it was too soon to determine what impact the carbon rule, and state plans for implementing it, will have on the company.

From 2014 to 2016, IPL plans to spend $326 million on MATS compliance alone.

At least half of IPL’s capital spending plan involves replacement of coal-fired units. The biggest project, at $600 million, is the construction of a 671 MW gas-fired generating station to replace aging coal units at its Eagle Valley plant, 30 miles south of Indianapolis.

AES’ Second Thoughts About U.S.

Although it is based in Arlington, Va., three-quarters of AES’ pre-tax income from continuing operations comes from its international investments.

AES, which bought IPL in 2000 for $2.15 billion, would see its stake in IPALCO fall to 70% under the deal.

Earlier this year AES tried to sell its Dayton Power & Light’s generation fleet rather than spinning it off into an unregulated subsidiary by 2017, as the Public Utility Commission of Ohio had ordered.

AES bought DPL in 2011 for $3.5 billion, about a 9% premium to DPL’s stock price. But AES later expressed regrets about the purchase, saying it hadn’t received the benefits it expected. In its 10-K filed last February, AES cited Ohio’s market-based pricing and low wholesale prices.

In July, however, AES said it had dropped its plan to sell DPL. “In light of the potential recovery of power prices, as well as PJM capacity prices, AES believes that this business has additional value that can be captured by continuing to own and operate these generation assets,” AES said in a statement.

Moody’s Likes Deal

Moody’s Investors Service said in a Dec. 15 report that the sale would help the credit rating of IPALCO, which is in the midst of a $1.4 billion capital spending plan.

“CDPQ’s contractual commitment is credit positive for IPALCO and its wholly owned subsidiary Indianapolis Power & Light … particularly considering CDPQ’s strong credit quality compared to AES,” Moody’s analyst Natividad Martel wrote.

Moody’s did not change its ratings for IPL, IPALCO or AES, however, which are Baa1 stable, Baa3 stable and Ba3 stable, respectively.

IPL has a current capital structure of 45% equity and 55% debt. Virtually all of the utility’s profits are returned to AES as dividends, which has left the utility thinly capitalized. In the first nine months of 2014, IPL paid $78 million in dividends to AES.

AES
Map of AES’ US businesses (Click to zoom)

Over the last two years, AES contributed $156 million in additional equity to IPL, said Moody’s.  AES and CDPQ will contribute another $62 million on top of CDPQ’s $349 million.

Although it would ultimately receive less in dividends from IPL, AES would enjoy a reduction in requirements to make equity contributions to IPL. That will “enhance AES’ parent only free cash flow position,” said Moody’s.

That’s notable because AES recently announced it would double dividend distributions starting in the first quarter of 2015.

As of Sept. 30, IPL had an available borrowing capacity of $249.3 million under its $250 million unsecured revolving credit facility after outstanding borrowings and existing letters of credit.

CDPQ

The purchase is being made by CDP Infrastructure Fund GP, a New York-based investment fund and a wholly-owned subsidiary of CDPQ.

CDPQ has a controlling interest in Gaz Metro Limited Partnership, the biggest natural gas distributor in Quebec and the 100% owner of Vermont’s Green Mountain Power.

In MISO, in which IPL operates, CDPQ has a 24.7% interest in Invenergy Wind, whose projects include Bishop Hill Energy III, in Henry County, Ill.

IPL is asking FERC for expedited approval of the CDPQ deal. Even with Invenergy Wind’s current and proposed projects, Invenergy and IPL would own or control on a combined basis 2% of MISO’s installed generation capacity, IPL said in its filing. IPL noted that FERC recently accepted market-based rate filings by affiliates of Invenergy Wind based in part on the passive nature of the CDPQ interests.

New Source Review Liability

IPL, meanwhile, could find itself facing other environmental costs outside of its $1.4 billion capital program.

Although not mentioned in the context of the CDPQ deal, IPL remains haunted by the specter of a 16-page Notice of Violation the EPA handed the utility in 2009.

It alleges IPL updated three generating plants over 23 years without adding the most modern pollution controls. The EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) requires utilities to undergo a pre-construction review for new plants and whenever existing plants are modified in a way that involves “non-routine” physical changes resulting in a significant increase in emissions.

IPL contends that the maintenance projects were routine.

In its third-quarter earnings report, AES said it has met with EPA officials to resolve the NOV and noted that in other NSR cases the EPA has “required companies to pay civil penalties, install additional pollution control technology on coal-fired electric generating units, retire existing generating units, and invest in additional environmental projects.” Such an outcome could have a “material impact” on IPL and AES, the company said.

One such case involving similar allegations cost American Electric Power $75 million in penalties and environmental projects as part of a 2007 settlement with the EPA. AEP agreed as part of the settlement to make $1.2 billion in additional sulfur- and nitrogen-control upgrades at its Rockport and Clinch River generating plants.

AEP’s settlement came after almost eight years of litigation.

Coal-to-Gas Conversions, New Capacity Zone Ease NYISO Reliability Concerns

By William Opalka

capacity zoneNYISO said last week that its new capacity zone has convinced generation owners to reopen several shuttered power plants, delaying potential reliability concerns to beyond 2019.

The RTO said 1,900 MW not counted in its September Resource Needs Assessment — mostly mothballed coal plants whose owners are converting them to natural gas — have been added to the expected generation fleet. Based on these additions, NYISO said it has withdrawn its request seeking additional capacity.

The revived resources include the 495-MW Danskammer Generating Station in Newburgh and the 557-MW Bowline Generating Station in Haverstraw.

“Earlier this year, we identified reliability needs that would begin in 2019. Fortunately, the new capacity zone in southeastern New York encouraged power producers to revitalize significant generating resources in the region. These investments address the identified reliability needs and are expected to produce $400 million in savings next year,” NYISO President and CEO Stephen G. Whitley said in a statement.

In its RNA, NYISO said that New York’s electric system would violate resource adequacy criteria beginning in 2019 due to inadequate resource capacity in southeastern New York. (See NYISO Sees Capacity Crunch by 2019; Tx Problems in 2015.)

The returning capacity includes Danskammer, which previous owner Dynegy in 2013 said was headed to the scrap yard. New owner Danskammer Energy, which was formed after the creation of the capacity zone, said the facility would be converted to natural gas, with fuel oil as a backup. The company expects the facility to be in operation by the end of this year.

NRG Energy, the owner of the Bowline facility, said the new capacity zone had created pricing signals that justify the restoration of the Bowline Unit 2 to full service by summer 2015.

Other plants that have announced plans to return to service include the 348-MW Selkirk Cogeneration Project, the 185-MW Astoria 20 Power Plant in Queens and the 435-MW Dunkirk Generating Station in western New York, NYISO said.

News of the restored generation provides vindication for the RTO, which received heavy criticism after proposing the new capacity zone. (See New Yorkers Upset over NYISO Capacity Zone.)

New York PSC Orders Study, Conference on Transmission Congestion

transmission
(Click to zoom)

The New York Public Service Commission ordered a study and technical conference to identify fixes for persistent transmission congestion along the Mohawk and Hudson Valley corridors.

“After carefully considering comments from stakeholders and members of the public, and in light of other proceedings related to improving energy efficiency and modernizing the grid, we will carefully reexamine the need for transmission upgrades to address existing transmission congestion problems,” PSC Chair Audrey Zibelman said in a statement. The congestion has increased consumers’ costs and raised reliability concerns, the commission said.

Transmission developers have until Jan. 19 to submit proposed upgrades. The commission ordered staff to issue a report addressing the needs and potential solutions by June 10, which will be followed by a technical conference (13-E-0488).

In its order the commission said the technical conference will allow “a full airing and discussion among the stakeholders of the basis of the need for transmission facilities and the viability of potential alternatives.”

A commission decision on preferred projects is expected in August or September.

EPA Coal Ash Rule Pleases Utilities; Enviros Upset

By Ted Caddell

coal ash
(Click to zoom)

The Environmental Protection Agency last week issued the first-ever federal regulations on the handling and storage of coal ash, pleasing utilities and disappointing environmentalists by declining to classify the material as hazardous waste.

Utilities generally welcomed the rule, with FirstEnergy calling EPA’s decision to regulate coal combustion residuals (CCRs) as solid waste “appropriate.”

The Sierra Club called it “a modest first step,” while environmental group EarthJustice — which had won a court order forcing EPA to act — blasted the result.

“Today’s rule doesn’t prevent more tragic spills like the ones we are still trying to clean up in North Carolina and Tennessee,” the group said, referring to the Tennessee Valley Authority’s 2007 spill of 5 million cubic yards of contaminated coal ash in Kingston, Tenn., and last winter’s failure of a pipe at a Duke Energy impound pond that dumped 39,000 tons into the Dan River.

The Duke incident led North Carolina legislators to impose stricter rules on how coal ash storage sites can be operated.

But until Friday, there were no federal regulations governing the storage and use of coal ash, a byproduct of burning coal. There are an estimated 1,000 coal ash storage sites in the U.S., primarily under the control of electric generating companies. The industry produces an estimated 140 million tons of coal ash per year.

A “hazardous waste” designation would have resulted in a bigger increase in storage costs and prohibited any beneficial use for coal ash. By some estimates, about 40% of coal ash is used for highway construction, concrete manufacturing and fill material at construction sites.

The EPA proposed coal ash rules in 2010 but, under political pressure from industry groups, the White House sent the rules back for rewriting. It took a court-ordered consent decree to set Friday’s deadline. The final rule will take effect six months after their publication in the Federal Register.

EPA: ‘Common Sense, Pragmatic Rules’

Although the rules were issued by the EPA, it will be up to states to enforce them. “The rule requires that power plant owners and operators provide detailed information to citizens and states to fully understand how their communities may be impacted,” the EPA said.

The EPA called the rules “common sense, pragmatic rules to protect against structural failure, water and air pollution.”

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the rules are intended “to help prevent the next catastrophic coal ash impoundment failure, which can cost millions for local businesses, communities and states. These strong safeguards will protect drinking water from contamination, air from coal ash dust and our communities from structural failures, while providing facilities a practical approach for implementation.”

The rules:

  • Require closure of impound sites that fail to meet engineering and structural standards;
  • Require regular inspections of the structural safety of surface impoundments;
  • Prohibit construction of new sites in sensitive areas such as wetlands and earthquake zones;
  • Require monitoring of groundwater near sites and closing unlined sites that are polluting groundwater;
  • Mandate liners for new sites;
  • Close sites that are no longer receiving coal ash; and
  • Mandate control of air-blown coal ash.

Utilities: Rules Are Workable

Utilities generally viewed the rules as workable.

American Electric Power spokeswoman Tammy Ridout said the company was pleased the EPA allowed for “continued application of important beneficial uses of these materials. Where closure of impoundments will be needed under this rule, the EPA is providing adequate time to implement the closures safely.”

Ridout said the company has already taken many of the steps outlined in the rules.

“AEP already has ground-water monitoring systems in place at most of our ash impoundments. We have developed a plan to close, dewater and permanently cap all but two of our existing eight fly ash ponds and will close a total of 20 ash ponds. Many of these pond closures will be at plants that will be retiring in the next year.”

PPL spokesman George Lewis said his company is reviewing the rules to see how it will affect it. Lewis said classifying coal ash as hazardous wastes “could have had a devastating impact on future beneficial uses, including concrete, cement and wallboard manufacturing.”

“PPL has not been opposed to EPA regulation that keeps beneficial uses as an option. We believe beneficial uses are a common-sense environmental solution, and we’ve pursued them for several years under strict and effective state regulations,” he said. “With appropriate measures to protect human health and groundwater quality, beneficial uses are better for the environment than landfill or basin disposal.”

In a research note yesterday, UBS Securities said the rule could hurt merchant generators with coal portfolios such as NRG Energy and Dynegy, which can’t turn to state regulators for rate increases. The analysts also cited FirstEnergy, saying the company may have to retire its giant Mansfield plant if it is unable to continue using its Little Blue Run coal ash site.

FirstEnergy spokeswoman Stephanie Walton said the company already complies with strict state regulations in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. “FirstEnergy has extensive groundwater monitoring in place at all of our coal ash disposal facilities,” she said. “We are currently reviewing the rule to better understand whether there will be any implications for our operations.”

Duke: $3.4 Billion Cleanup

Duke spokesman Dave Scanzoni said the company is engaged in a review of the lengthy set of rules and its final position wouldn’t be known until early next year. But he noted that Duke is already in the midst of a $3.4 billion coal ash remediation effort in North Carolina. (See Duke Sees $3.4B Coal Ash Cleanup Bill; Who’s Next?)

“Duke Energy will adjust its existing ash management plans, as necessary, to comply with all state and federal regulations,” he said.

EEI: Door Left Open to ‘Hazardous’ Designation

Edison Electric Institute President Tom Kuhn said the group supports the EPA’s decision, but he added “we still have concerns with the self-implementing nature of the rule and the way in which EPA has left the door open to one day regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste, creating additional uncertainty for electric utilities.”

“Passing legislation that establishes state-enforced federal requirements for the disposal of coal ash would address many of our concerns and help eliminate uncertainty,” he said. “EEI will continue to advocate for such legislation in the next Congress.”

The Utility Solid Waste Activity Group, an industry organization, voiced similar concerns, saying it was “disappointed with the agency’s suggestion that it is still evaluating whether to reverse this determination and regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste at some point in the future.”

Enviros: Not Enough

Some regulation is better than none at all, environmental groups said, but some expressed disappointment that the rules aren’t stringent enough.

Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, said the Obama administration did “not go far enough to protect families from this toxic pollution.”

“The Sierra Club has significant concerns about what has been omitted from these protections and how they will be enforced in states that have historically had poor track records on coal ash disposal,” she said.

EarthJustice also was critical. “It won’t stop the slower moving disaster that is unfolding for communities around the country, as leaky coal ash ponds and dumps poison water,” EarthJustice attorney Lisa Evans said.

“While EPA’s coal ash rule takes some long overdue steps to establish minimum national groundwater monitoring and cleanup standards, it relies too heavily on the industry to police itself,” said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project. “Companies like Duke Energy, First Energy and TVA have already learned that spills and leaking ash ponds add up to billions of dollars in cleanup costs.”

PSEG Nuclear Calls on PJM Board to Block ‘Risky’ Artificial Island Fix

pjmPSEG Nuclear last week called on PJM’s Board of Managers to prevent planners from using what the company said is unproven technology in the stability fix for Artificial Island.

The company, operators of the island’s Salem and Hope Creek nuclear plants, said a proposal by Dominion Resources could result in damage to turbine generator shafts and widespread outages.

Thomas Joyce, chief nuclear officer, said in a letter that Dominion plans to use “FACTS” devices, “for which there is limited knowledge of potential failure modes and their frequency of occurrence.”

Dominion is one of four finalists for the Artificial Island project; PSEG Nuclear’s sister company, Public Service Electric & Gas, is also in contention.

Joyce’s letter repeats criticism the company leveled during presentations before the Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee Dec. 9. (See Artificial Island Finalists Face Off in Tense Meeting.)

“PJM staff had previously represented that it consulted with the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] and the NRC was unconcerned with any of the proposals,” Joyce wrote. “At the Dec. 9 TEAC meeting, we learned for the first time that the ‘consultation’ consisted of only informal discussions during two telephone calls. This is a far cry from anything close to an official licensing position on the part of the NRC.”

Joyce said that “by proposing to install these devices in close proximity to the second largest nuclear facility in the United States, PJM is creating the potential for a series of events that can not only cause harm to the multiple nuclear units at AI but also potentially impact a substantial portion of the EMAAC/Mid-Atlantic system.”

FERC Begins ‘Next Step’ on Order 1000: Interregional Filings

By Michael Brooks

order 1000On Thursday, CAISO became the first region to fully comply with the regional requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Order 1000.

Now, the commission is starting the process of arbitrating interregional compliance filings, beginning last week with PJM and MISO.

It’s clear the RTOs still have work to do.

FERC conditionally accepted the RTOs’ proposed revisions to their joint operating agreement (JOA), finding that they only partially complied with the requirements of Order 1000. It directed them to modify their interregional cost allocation method for cross-border transmission projects and develop identical language in their Tariffs to describe their interregional transmission coordination procedures (ER13-1944).

Cross-Border Project Cost Allocation

The RTOs filed their own revisions separately last year, mainly because of disagreements over the cross-border project cost allocation issue. While PJM proposed relying on the existing cost allocation methods in the JOA, MISO wanted to remove them for cross-border baseline reliability projects, arguing that tie lines between MISO and PJM transmission owners be designated as reliability projects, with each RTO recovering costs in accordance with its own Tariff. (See PJM in Standoff with MISO, NYISO on Order 1000 Filing.)

MISO based its argument on the fact that FERC had previously accepted the RTO’s proposal in its regional Order 1000 compliance filing to remove regional cost allocation for its baseline reliability projects and assign all of the costs to the pricing zone where the project is located.

FERC rejected MISO’s argument, however. “To the extent that a conflict exists between the existing cross-border baseline reliability project cost allocation in the MISO-PJM JOA and the cost allocation requirements for interregional transmission facilities in Order 1000, that conflict results from MISO’s decision to no longer regionally allocate the costs of MISO baseline reliability projects, not the requirements of Order 1000,” FERC said.

Similar, but not Identical, Language

In their compliance filings, PJM and MISO said they were in agreement over interregional transmission coordination procedures. But owing to their separate filings, the RTOs included language and terms based on their own individual Tariffs. Order 1000 requires neighboring planners to use the same language in their filings.

“Although MISO and PJM state that these minor differences in their respective filings are needed to reflect whether the
discussion is from the perspective of either MISO or PJM, we find that some of the differences do not serve this purpose and therefore are not necessary,” FERC said. The commission directed the RTOs to adopt identical terms in new compliance filings due in two months.

FERC also said that the RTOs’ cost allocation proposals do not explicitly refer to an interregional transmission facility as defined by Order 1000: “a transmission facility that is located in two or more transmission planning regions.” The RTOs’ JOA refers to cross-border baseline reliability projects and cross-border market efficiency projects, but it does not explicitly state that these projects must be located in both PJM and MISO. FERC wants a definition that matches Order 1000’s in the next filing.

“I guess it’s no secret that the somewhat convoluted seams between those two regions have a complicated and lengthy history at the commission, and I’m hopeful that today’s order on the interregional compliance filing will help improve … [the] interregional coordination of transmission across the seams,” FERC Chairman Cheryl LaFleur said. “It does look so far like … interregional coordination [and] cost allocation … will be the [issues] that we have to devote some attention to.”

NIPSCO Complaint

In a separate but related order, FERC addressed a complaint from Northern Indiana Public Service Co. against PJM and MISO regarding the interregional transmission planning provisions in the JOA. NIPSCO, a MISO member, is flanked by PJM in eastern Indiana and Illinois to its west.

The company complained that the MISO-PJM seams there are highly congested and that the RTOs have not approved a single cross-border transmission upgrade project under their JOA.

In response, FERC ordered staff to conduct a technical conference to explore the issues NIPSCO raised (EL13-88).

FERC Remains Split Over ROE Rate for RITELine Transmission Project

By Michael Brooks

ritelineThe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last week upheld its 2011 rate order for the RITELine transmission project over the opposition of Commissioner Philip Moeller, who opposed the panel’s decision to reduce an incentive adder for risks.

The RITELine Project, a joint venture by Exelon and American Electric Power, is a proposed $1.6 billion 765-kV transmission line stretching from northern Illinois, through Indiana and into Ohio. The companies say it would allow the integration of 5,000 MW of wind generation.

The companies had sought an ROE of 12.7%, which included a base ROE of 10.7% plus certain incentive adders.

FERC’s 2011 order approved a total rate of 11.43%, including some adders and a base rate of 9.93%.

FERC granted only a 100-basis-point adder “to compensate for the risks and challenges associated with investing in new transmission,” rather than the 150 basis points it had previously granted for such risks. The commission said a reduced adder was justified because the incentives it had included reduced the project’s financial risks.

In their rehearing request, the companies argued that this represented a substantial change in how FERC grants incentives for transmission projects, and that the commission had failed to adequately explain it.

In last week’s order denying rehearing (ER11-4069), the commissioners rejected the companies’ contention that reduction of the risk adder “represents a departure from commission policy; there is no policy guaranteeing a project 150 basis points, but rather any ROE adder depends on the risks and challenges of that particular project.”

In a partial dissent, Moeller said the commission had made “a significant policy change without justification for that change.” “If we are going to produce less carbon dioxide when generating electricity, we’ll need more transmission lines to move cleaner sources of power to those who need it,” Moeller continued. “This action thus sets up a collision between two federal agencies that regulate the energy industry. That is, while the Environmental Protection Agency is moving to limit carbon dioxide, which will require more transmission lines, this commission is changing its policies on transmission incentives in a manner that actually discourages the very transmission that will be needed to satisfy EPA requirements.”

Federal Briefs

Yucca MountainAttempts to restart the Yucca Mountain Underground Nuclear Waste Repository have hit another snag: the government does not have the necessary water rights to operate at the Nevada site.

A staff report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that despite decades of study and construction, the Department of Energy allowed land-use agreements for the site to expire and would need an act of Congress to renew them.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., a leading opponent of Yucca Mountain, said the report underscored major weaknesses in the project. “This is just one reason why the Yucca Mountain project will never be built,” he said in a statement.

More: Las Vegas Review Journal

NRC Puts Callaway’s License Renewal Decision on Hold

Callaway (Source: Ameren)Ameren Missouri expected the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to rule by the end of this month on its application for a 20-year license renewal for its Callaway Energy Center, but the company heard last week that the decision is on hold while the commission considers a legal challenge.

The Missouri Coalition for the Environment, which on Dec. 8 requested to intervene in the case, wants to challenge the “legal adequacy” of the commission’s newly revised Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel rule. Callaway was to be the second nuclear plant to get a license renewal under the new spent-fuel rule, which the commission adopted in October, ending a two-year moratorium on license renewals.

Callaway’s current license expires in 2024.

More: Fulton Sun

FERC OKs Columbia Gas Compressor Station Upgrade

Columbia Gas’ $268.5 million Eastside Expansion Project, which includes 19 miles of new transmission line from Chester County, Pa., into New Jersey, received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The expansion includes plans to upgrade a compressor station in Forks Township, Pa., to support the pipeline’s added capacity. FERC determined that the upgrade would not have an adverse impact on air quality.

More: Allentown Morning Call

Another NJ Pipeline Expansion Project Approved by FERC

The Leidy Southeast line, an addition to the Transcontinental Pipeline designed to bring Marcellus Shale natural gas to southern markets, was approved last week by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The $738 million project, a 30-mile series of loops in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey, won the commission’s approval despite objections from environmentalists who said it would cross farmlands and wetlands.

More: StateImpact

Minnesota-Manitoba Tx Line Gets Nod from FERC

The Great Northern Transmission Line, a 220-mile, 500-kV line being built by Minnesota Power and Manitoba Hydro, has received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The line will bring power to Minnesota from two hydro stations in northern Manitoba. MISO also voted to include the line in its Transmission Expansion Planning report for 2014.

More: Zacks

FERC Grants Native American Hydro Project Exempt Status

PPL Kerr DamThe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exempted a Montana hydro project from having to comply with reporting requirements, the first time such an exemption has been granted. The project will come under the full ownership of Native American tribes next year.

The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, which already owns part of the Kerr Hydroelectric Project, are buying the remaining shares from PPL. The tribes and their company Energy Keepers Inc. asked FERC for an order declaring them exempt public utilities under section 201(f) of the Federal Power Act, which would relieve them of obligations to maintain or make available their books and records to the commission.

FERC found that the tribes and their holding company are performing an inherent government function and were exempt. The ruling will allow the tribes to engage in forward power sales before assuming full control of the project.

More: JDSupra

DOE Releases Environmental Study on 720-Mile Tx Line

A proposed $2 billion transmission line designed to bring wind energy from Oklahoma to Tennessee passed an important regulatory hurdle when the Department of Energy released the draft environmental impact study.

Clean Line Energy Partners, the project’s developer, said the final environmental impact study should be completed next year. Construction on the Plains & Eastern project is expected to begin next year and to be completed in 2018. The line is designed to deliver 3,500 MW of wind energy to its final customer, the Tennessee Valley Authority.

More: Tulsa World

Savannah River Site Cleanup Marks Milestone

Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz has given the OK for the Savannah River Site in South Carolina to begin  cleaning up radioactive tanks that stored chemicals when the site was part of the nation’s nuclear weapons production system.

Moniz’s decision came after a long study of hazards and preliminary work at the site. The underground tanks of H Tank Farm will be emptied and their interiors will be coated with a cement grouting to stabilize any remaining materials.

“We are now able to move forward to safely, effectively and efficiently clean up and close these tanks in the H Tank Farm, as we work to achieve the key mission of cleaning up the environmental legacy of the Cold War,” Moniz said.

More: The Times and Democrat

AEP Seeks State Backing for Aging Ohio Coal Plant

By Ted Caddell

American Electric Power went before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio last week in a rare oral argument to support its request for a power purchase agreement (PPA) for its share of an aging, coal-fired power plant.

If granted, the costs, or benefits, involved wouldn’t amount to much. But as a precedent, it would be significant.

At issue is AEP’s approximately 435-MW share of the 1,000-MW Kyger Creek plant in Chesire, Ohio. The company said the plant is old and at a disadvantage in the state’s deregulated wholesale power market.

AEP said Kyger Creek needs a guaranteed revenue stream to keep the plant operating and bolster the reliability of the regional power grid.

AEP is seeking permission for a long-term (10 to 15 years) PPA from Kyger Creek at a price that would cover the plant’s operating costs plus a profit (13-2385-EL-SSO).

The plant’s output would then be sold in PJM’s day-ahead and real-time markets. If the market price exceeds the PPA, Ohio customers will receive credits. When it is below the PPA, customers will foot the bill.

Opponents have called the proposal a bailout for a power company that was already given a good deal when the state opened the retail market to customer choice. AEP Ohio received $927 million in stranded-cost recovery as a part of the switch to a deregulated market.

Waiting in the wings are more requests just like it. AEP has another request that would cover four more plants. Duke Energy and FirstEnergy have similar requests before PUCO.

Terri Flora, AEP spokeswoman, acknowledged that it is a difficult argument to make before the commission and customers.

“We are getting a lot of feedback, either for or against, and now it is just wait and see,” she said. “It really comes down to how much of a player Ohio wants to be in generation. It is not about us, really; it is about providing rate stability, as well as economic development, and keeping decent plants alive for the reminder of their lives.”

She scoffed at opponents’ use of the term bailout. “Some of the interveners use words that are intended to scare,” she said. “This is simply a financial hedge. If we had had this PPA in place this time last year, they would have seen a credit to their bills.”

Flora said she thinks PUCO will issue a ruling within two months.

PJM Seeking RTO Consensus on Offer Cap Increase

By Suzanne Herel

PJM is seeking to reach a consensus with neighboring RTOs on a long-term increase in the $1,000 energy offer cap.

PJM CEO Terry Boston said that he proposed a joint approach to ISO-NE and NYISO at an ISO/RTO Council Markets Committee meeting last week. Boston said he also discussed the issue separately with MISO.

Boston told the Markets and Reliability Committee Thursday he wants to coordinate with the neighboring RTOs “so it doesn’t create a seams problem with people rushing across the border when there is a gas price spike.”

On Dec. 15, PJM asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to raise the cost-based cap to $1,800/MWh through March (EL15-31). PJM made its request to FERC in a Section 206 filing after members failed to reach consensus over the past eight months. (See PJM Board to Seek $1,800 Offer Cap.)

Boston again expressed his disappointment in the deadlock. “Our ability to govern ourselves in the stakeholder process depends in large part on compromise,” he said.

Several members asked what will happen after March.

“We believe this issue is a broader national issue. We are hoping FERC would take this on,” said Andy Ott, PJM executive vice president for markets. “If we don’t see that occurring, we will have to take it up again.”