Select a Practice Complex Dispute Resolution Corporate & Finance -Banking -Broker-Dealer -Communications -Education -Energy Transactions -Environmental -Executive Compensation -Financial Institution Dispute Resolution -Investment Companies -Joint Ventures -Licensing -Life Sciences -Mergers and Acquisitions -Private Equity -Real Estate -Restructuring -Sale & Leasebacks -Tax -Trusts & Estates Energy -Regulatory   -Electrical Industry   -Natural Gas, LNG, and Water Supply Industries   -Transactional   -NERC Reliability Standards -Transactions   -Mergers and Acquisitions   -Project Development   -Financing   -Energy-Related Agreements   -Ownership Arrangements   -Regulatory Structuring & Approvals   -Taxes -Renewables   -Wind   -Solar   -Hydroelectric -Energy Litigation -Compliance, Investigations, and Enforcement Government Law & Strategy -Government Contracts   -False Claims Act Investigations and Defense   -Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) -Public Policy & Law   -Homeland Security   -Congressional Investigations   -Political Law -State Attorneys General Insurance Coverage -Commercial General Liability -Crime and Fidelity -Employment Practices Liability -Entertainment Industry Losses and Claims -Environmental -Errors and Omissions (Professional Malpractice) -Executive Liability -Food and Product Contamination -Insurance Broker Liability -Insurance Policy and Risk Audit -Political Risk Insurance -Property and Business Interruption Losses Intellectual Property -Patent Litigation -Trademarks -Patent Prosecution -IP Portfolio Development and Counseling -Licensing -Due Diligence -IP Monetization -Computer Science -Life Sciences and Chemicals -Semiconductors -Copyrights Litigation -Antitrust & Financial Services -Business Litigation -Defending and Resolving Class Litigation -Employment   -Employment Litigation   -ERISA   -Immigration -Energy Litigation -False Claims Act Investigations and Defense -Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) -Financial Institution Dispute Resolution -Financial Restructuring & Bankruptcy -Government Contracts -Insurance Coverage -IP Litigation -Securities - Litigation, Regulatory, & Compliance -State Attorneys General -White Collar Criminal Defense & Investigations   -Securities Enforcement   -Internal Corporate Investigations   -White Collar Criminal Defense   -Shareholder Derivative Actions   -Congressional Investigations

Electricity Market Development and Operations

Dickstein Shapiro is in the forefront of energy industry restructuring and is actively involved in every region of the United States on a daily basis. The firm participates in the formulation of the laws, rules, and policies that govern restructured power pools, power and ancillary services markets, transmission planning and operations, and regional transmission organizations. Dickstein Shapiro counsels clients and represents them in regulatory proceedings and in court on all kinds of energy matters, including issues related to the transition of the energy sector from a tightly regulated, vertically integrated industry to a more unbundled and competitive market, and, in some cases, back to a more regulated market.

In this capacity, Dickstein Shapiro has represented or currently represents:

New England

• Pittsfield Generating Company, L.P., in request for waiver of unreserved use penalties while operating under an RMR Agreement.
• FirstLight Power Resources, Inc., in evaluating the performance and results of ISO-NE of ISO-NE Forward Capacity Auctions, identifying market rule flaws and proposing needed market rule revisions.
• Pittsfield Generating Company, L.P., in negotiation and filing of amendments to its Reliability Must-Run (RMR) Agreement with ISO-NE to recover CO2 allowance costs.
• FirstLight Power Resources, Inc., in negotiation of an interconnection agreement for its Waterbury Generating facility with ISO-NE and Northeast Utilities.
• FirstLight Power Resources, Inc. and NRG Energy, Inc., in NEPOOL stakeholder and FERC proceedings pertaining to market rules for compensating generators whose de-list bids in ISO-NE Forward Capacity Auctions are rejected because of local reliability needs.
• Constellation Energy Group, Inc. companies and 12 load-serving entities in negotiations to settle a dispute between competitive suppliers and local distribution companies regarding responsibility for more than $80 million in uplift charges associated with local reliability problems in Cape Cod.
• Several generators in proceedings concerning application and/or reform of ISO New England Inc.’s Forward Capacity Market, and Forward Reserve Market Designs.
• NRG Energy, Inc. and Milford Power Company, LLC, in a FERC proceeding on market rules for implementing its forward capacity market.
• Millennium Power Partners, L.P., in proceedings relating to updating the capacity component charge for providing reactive power services.
• LSP Bridgeport Energy LLC, in the filing, settlement negotiations, and hearing procedures pertaining to its cost-of-service reliability must-run (RMR) contract with ISO New England Inc.
• Milford Power Company, LLC, in the filing and settlement negotiations pertaining to its cost of service RMR contract with ISO New England Inc.
• NRG Energy, Inc., in the filing of its cost-of-service RMR contracts with ISO NE for its Connecticut facilities.
• PSEG Power Connecticut, LLC and PSEG Energy Resource & Trade, LLC, in settlement negotiations and an evidentiary hearing pertaining to its cost-of-service RMR contract with ISO New England Inc.
• A coalition of New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) generators in filing a comprehensive proposal for a new market design, including congestion management system and multi-settlement system.
• A coalition of power suppliers, in negotiating with a New England regional transmission organization (RTO). This representation included developing strategies for negotiating with RTO staff and other stakeholders, drafting agreements and tariffs, and participating in stakeholder meetings and smaller negotiation sessions with affected sectors.
• Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C., in the settlement of litigation regarding the issue of whether, under standard offer supply contracts, suppliers or rate payers are responsible for more than $185 million in congestion and line cost payments incurred under the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Standard Market Design.
• Various generators in FERC-mandated mediation related to the Northeast RTO.
• Stakeholders in the development of the New England-New York RTO.
• Several NEPOOL participants in preparing filings on the development of a Standard Market Design for New England.
• PG&E National Energy Group in the settlement of a NEPOOL tariff rate proceeding.
• Generators in the formulation of Standard Market Design rules regarding congestion and line loss charges, and regarding the effect of the rules on obligations under preexisting power sale agreements.
• PG&E National Energy Group in obtaining full credit under NEPOOL rules for the reliability benefits provided by its share of the Hydro Quebec Interconnection.
• PG&E National Energy Group in a proceeding before the Rhode Island Public Service Commission regarding the applicability of a retail tariff to the delivery of station power.
• Competitive Power Ventures in ISO-NE stakeholder proceedings to develop tariff rules that align the interconnection queue with the forward market capacity market qualification process.
• Competitive Power Ventures in a Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control proceeding Investigation of Measures to Reduce Federally Mandated Congestion Charges, Docket No. 5-7 14PH2.
• Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., on long-term power purchase agreements.
• Lenders to Northeast Utilities, in connection with the assessment of risks associated with New Hampshire’s attempt to abrogate certain rate agreements entered into with Public Service of New Hampshire, that were tied to Northeast’s acquisition of PSNH.

New York

• Competitive Power Ventures and New Athens Generating Company in stakeholder proceedings before the New York Public Service Commission to develop methods for selection of reliability backstop projects.
• CPV Valley, LLC, regarding its interconnection to the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) bulk power transmission system and representing CPV Valley’s interests in New York State siting regulatory proceedings.
• Coalition of generation owners in defense of the NYISO Station Power netting rules before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Responded to petition for certiorari, which was denied.
• Empire Generating Company, LLC, in FERC proceedings to consider amendments to the NYISO Tariff to implement the Consensus Deliverability Plan for studying interconnection service requests.
• KeySpan Corporation in the development of market rules for the New York electricity market, including market power mitigation rules for New York City and the NYISO region generally.
• KeySpan Corporation in the conversion of method for capacity measurement in New York from installed capacity (ICAP) to unforced capacity (UCAP) with respect to conversion formulae and price and offer caps.
• Lighthouse at Long Island, in connection with its efforts to address energy supply matters associated with its redevelopment of the Mitchel Field site on Long Island, New York.
• The New York Power Authority (NYPA) and KeySpan Corporation in the development and implementation of transmission upgrade and interconnection policies. 
• NYISO participants in the development and implementation of station power rules.
• The NYPA in a complaint proceeding against Consolidated Edison, Inc., for violation of station power rules.
• The NYPA on grandparenting of existing transactions under open access rules.
• NYISO participants on rate, bid, and price caps and refund issues for various ancillary services.
• Various generators in filing an opposition to an RTO application in the New York region.
• PG&E National Energy Group in opposing modifications to existing transmission agreements during transition to the NYISO.
• Strategic Energy, L.L.C., in obtaining a FERC order directing the NYISO to adopt less restrictive credit requirements.
• KeySpan-Ravenswood, Inc. in disputes over compensation for blackstart services and in proceedings to develop new blackstart compensation rules.
• Finch Pruyn Paper Company in disputes over Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation’s rates for back-up, supplemental and maintenance power.
• Diana Dolgeville Corporation in proceedings before the New York Public Service Commission in which Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation was challenging Diana Dolgeville’s Qualifying Facility Power Purchase Agreement.
• Prudential Securities in connection with Consolidated Edison Company of New York’s electric rate restructuring proceeding before the New York Public Service Commission.
• Trigen-Nassau Energy Corp., in advising the company on regulatory matters, commercial agreements, and litigation related to its 52 MW cogeneration facility located on Long Island, New York, which provides cooling and heating services to a county owned sports stadium, hospital, and jail and sells electricity to the Long Island Power Authority.

PJM

• CPV St. Charles in Maryland Public Service Commission proceedings considering a generation facility’s request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity.
• Reliant Energy, Inc., in various proceedings pertaining to the withdrawal of the Duquesne Light Company transmission system from PJM.
• Competitive Power Ventures in Maryland Department of the Environment proceedings with regard to the design and implementation of a regional greenhouse gas initiative in Maryland.
• Reliant Energy, Inc., in connection with revisions to PJM’s Reliability Pricing Model (RPM) capacity market design and implementation.
• CPV Maryland, LLC and Liberty Electric Power, LLC, in connection with proceedings to revise RPM.
• PECO Energy Company in the filing of a comprehensive proposal to restructure the PJM markets under Order No. 888. Also assisted PECO Energy Company in opposing rate design and congestion management proposals for PJM markets.
• Various clients in regulatory proceedings involving the PJM RTO, including matters related to transmission planning and expansion, long-term transmission rights, transmission pricing, interconnection procedures and agreements, congestion costs and rights, credit policies, and expanding the PJM RTO to include a number of Midwest utilities.
• Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco) in connection with the implementation of rules for ancillary service payments.
• Various clients with respect to PJM line loss methodology and in FERC proceedings to adopt a new marginal loss methodology.
• NRG Energy, Inc.; LS Power Associates, L.P.; Liberty Electric Power, LLC; and other clients in FERC proceedings and/or settlement negotiations involving PJM’s reliability pricing model (RPM) for forward capacity reserve markets.
• The NYPA in proceeding to allocate Regional Transmission Expansion Project costs to merchant transmission projects.
• Various clients in the separation of ownership of joint venture transmission and generation facilities for the Keystone and Conemaugh projects to facilitate ownership changes and compliance with FERC and PJM rules.
• Dover Energy Center; Duke Energy Fayette, LLC; Duke Energy Washington, LLC; Duke Energy Lee, LLC; Duke Energy Hanging Rock, LLC; NRG Dover; and RPL Holdings in obtaining compensation for reactive power supply services.
• The Maryland Public Service Commission in auctions for the purchase of standard offer power conducted by Allegheny Energy, Inc.; Baltimore Gas & Electric Company; and Pepco.
• PSEG Fossil LLC and PSEG Energy Resources & Trade in FERC proceedings and settlement negotiations involving its cost-of-service tariff for RMR service.
  Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C., in Seams Elimination Charge Adjustment (SECA) proceedings, resulting in a settlement that resolved all issues and achieved significant refunds for the client.
• Reliant Energy Corp. in proceedings arising out of Duquesne Light Company’s application to withdraw from PJM.
• Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., on long-term power purchase agreements.

Southeast

• CPV Warren in West Virginia Public Service Commission proceedings considering a certificate of need for a new transmission line.
• TECO Power Services and Tampa Electric Company in negotiations with other RTO applicants to reach a consensus in the proposal for the Southeast RTO. Also participated in FERC-ordered mediation for the RTO.
• Tampa Electric Company in the filing of an RTO application in accordance with FERC Order No. 2000, which resulted in the approval of GridFlorida RTO.
• Various generators in the filing of an opposition to an RTO application in the Southeast Power Pool.
• A local competitor of Virginia Electric and Power Company in monitoring and commenting on the Company’s proposed functional separation plan for its generation, transmission, and distribution assets.
• Duke Electric Transmission in a dispute regarding generator imbalance service.
• TECO Power Services in a number of Mississippi, Louisiana, and federal proceedings involving changes to the system agreement that governs the operation of a multistate, affiliated utility system; long-term resource planning; the design and implementation of competitive procurement processes; and the initiation of studies to assess the benefits of retiring existing generation facilities.
• A client in challenging assessments under generator imbalance agreements and in FERC litigation to revise the terms of the agreements. 
• Clients in FERC proceedings where the transmission owner proposed to establish uniform output limits for generators within its region in granting requests for transmission service. Dickstein Shapiro assisted its clients in negotiating some favorable changes and successfully challenged other aspects of the proposal before FERC.
• Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, L.L.C., in obtaining a network transmission arrangement to support its power agreement with the City of North Little Rock, Arkansas, despite the transmission owner’s (City’s former supplier) attempts to block service.
• NRG Energy, Inc.; Cottonwood Energy Company, LP; Plum Point Energy Associates, LLC; and other generators in FERC proceedings involving proposal by a transmission owner to establish an independent coordinator of transmission (ICT) and participant funding and related proceedings involving transmission access and planning.
• A number of clients in negotiating transmission agreements and in related FERC proceedings to obtain reasonable terms for transmission upgrade cost responsibilities, ancillary service cost obligations, and renewal terms.
• A client in the negotiation of the rate, terms, and conditions for an external generator to participate in the SPP Energy Imbalance Market.
• A client in the design of market protocols for station power self-supply in SPP.

Midwest

• Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. in triennial assessment of market power, requests for waivers, applications for issuance of securities under Federal Power Act (FPA) Section 204, and other general regulatory matters.
• Reliant Energy, Inc., in various proceedings pertaining to the integration of the Duquesne Light Company transmission system into the Midwest ISO.
• Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., in a proceeding to establish rates for sales of ancillary services to Ameren Illinois Utilities in 2007 and 2008.
• Reliant Energy, Inc., in a proceeding to establish Resource Adequacy Requirement rules and tariff requirements for the Midwest ISO.
• Reliant Energy, Inc. and New Covert Generating Company, in a proceeding to modify the Midwest ISO’s rules on compensating generators for reactive power compensation.
• A number of clients in proceedings involving the Midwest ISO, addressing issues including the design of market monitoring and mitigation plans, standardized interconnection procedures and agreements, development of rules for day-ahead and real-time energy and ancillary service markets, creation of financial transmission rights and the rules for allocating and auctioning those rights to market participants, the establishment of independent transmission companies within the RTO, and allocation of network upgrade costs to generators.
• A client before FERC regarding the Midwest ISO’s implementation of tariff terms, including improper assignment of penalties, overcharges related to changes in the designation of transmission paths, and inflexible redispatch procedures.
• A coalition of generators participating in the Alliance RTO formation stakeholder processes concerning standardized interconnection procedures and agreements by preparing negotiation drafts, forging consensus among the coalition, and representing the coalition members at stakeholder meetings and in FERC proceedings involving the proposals filed by the RTO.
• A client in the comprehensive analysis of the largest utility in the Midwest to support this client’s efforts to formulate regulatory strategies for marketing the output of its merchant generation in the region.
• The Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) and other clients in challenging transfers of merchant generators to affiliated franchised utilities in Illinois and Missouri.
• Duke Energy Vermillion, LLC, New Covert Generating Company, and Invenergy Cannon Falls in obtaining compensation for reactive power services.
• Various clients in disputes concerning terms, conditions, and pricing of transmission services with Midwest utilities.
• A leading wind power developer in evaluating interconnection and transmission service options.
• Horizon Wind Energy in FERC proceedings involving wind generation interconnection terms.
• The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) in FERC proceedings involving waiver of the obligation for utilities to purchase from Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) qualifying facilities (QF).
• Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. with respect to FERC’s application of its seven-factor test in classifying facilities as serving either a transmission or distribution function.
• MBIA, Inc. in efforts to mitigate potential exposure associated with over $600 million in financial guarantees it provided to Western Resources (d/b/a Westar) and its operating subsidiaries, including participation in regulatory proceedings in Kansas and before FERC.

Southwest

• Dogwood Energy LLC in successfully rebutting the presumption of market power, and thereby retaining its market-based rate authority for wholesale power sales in its relevant market, and resulting in a FERC order further clarifying market-based rate precedent in the context of independent power generators.
• Various clients in proceedings relating to the formation and development of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), addressing issues including the design of the energy imbalance market and market monitoring procedures, standardized interconnection procedures and agreements, allocation of network upgrade costs to generators, reactive power compensation, and various transmission and market initiatives.
• Redbud Energy LP, in negotiating a construction agreement under the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) tariff and related transmission credits.
• Lawton Cogeneration, L.L.C., in a QF decertification proceeding.
• InterGen in developing proposals for presentation to the Oklahoma Corporation Commissioners and in preparation for stakeholder meetings on market design and transmission pricing aspects of the RTO proposal.
• Duke Energy North America and TECO Power Services in proceedings before the Arkansas Public Service Commission to develop comprehensive resource planning guidelines, including transmission and resource planning and development of request for proposal (RFP) rules.
• A group of merchant interveners in petitioning the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) with respect to competitive procurement rules and working with the staff of the ACC and other interveners through a series of workshops to develop a consensus RFP process.
• A client in ACC proceedings to address issues relating to utility finances, debt protection, and affiliate issues.
• TECO Power Services in several disputes about denial of transmission service. In one of these matters, Dickstein Shapiro arranged for informal dispute resolution through FERC staff to address a tariff violation that affected service that was to begin a few days later, thereby rendering the formal FERC complaint process inadequate.
• InterGen in FERC proceedings to address market power issues arising out of a franchised utility’s purchase of a bankrupt independent power producer (IPP) competitor’s distressed generating facility under FPA Section 203.
• A client in the negotiation of the rate, terms, and conditions for an external generator to participate in the SPP Energy Imbalance Market.
• A client in the design of market protocols for station power self-supply in SPP. 

Texas

• The City of Denton, TX, in evaluating Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) rules on generation valuation as part of structuring the City’s divestiture plan.
• CPV Renewable Energy Company, LLC and CPV Rattlesnake Den Renewable Energy Company, LLC in a proceeding before the Public Utility Commission of Texas to consider designation of a Renewable Energy Zone.
• The largest commercial customer in Texas in the negotiation of a power purchase agreement and related matters and advice with respect to the establishment of a Texas Public Utility Commission-approved marketing affiliate and retail electricity provider.
• Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., on long-term power purchase agreements.

California and the West

• Basin Creek Equity Partners, L.L.C., in request for designation as a Category 1 Seller for purposes of its market-based rates.
• Calpine Corporation, on California market matters, including proceedings before FERC and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regarding standardization of capacity product, the Resource Adequacy program, centralized capacity market proposals, the Interim Capacity Procurement Mechanism, Exceptional Dispatch, station power, and transmission interconnection.
• California Sellers (Calpine Corporation, Citigroup Energy Inc., Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc., J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, Mirant Energy Trading, LLC, NRG Energy, Inc., Powerex Corporation, and RRI Energy, Inc.), in a complaint to FERC overturning CAISO tariff provisions on allocation of market default losses.
• PPM Energy in a complaint to FERC to obtain a refund for certain unauthorized transmission use charges and in proceedings to determine reactive power compensation.
• An independent generator, in negotiation of an interconnection agreement with CAISO and San Diego Gas and Electric Company.
• Four utilities, in non-public enforcement proceedings at FERC dealing with investigation of potential violations of CAISO tariff rules, all closed by FERC without taking any actions against the utilities.
• California generator, in connection with proposed interconnection to CAISO grid and disconnection from Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) transmission system.  
• Duke Energy Corporation in all aspects of the turmoil surrounding the collapse of the California energy markets in 2000-2001, including negotiation of a complex $207 million refund settlement. Dickstein Shapiro defends Duke Energy in federal and state courts against myriad class-action antitrust lawsuits. The firm also represented Duke Energy in numerous investigations arising out of the California electricity crises by state Attorneys General, U.S. Attorneys, state legislative committees, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
• NaturEner USA, LLC, in FERC proceedings and commercial negotiations regarding wind project’s transmission service rights from merchant transmission provider. 
• Duke Energy Moss Landing, L.L.C., in a complaint and subsequent administrative proceedings with FERC, pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), in obtaining revision of certain California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) Tariff provisions and protocols that impede California generating facilities from self-supplying station power.
• Duke Energy Corporation in obtaining an injunction against the Governor of California for his unconstitutional seizure of the Corporation’s long-term power contracts. Also pursued damage claims for such seizure in state agency and state court proceedings.
• Duke Energy Corporation through counseling on commercial aspects of the California electricity crisis, including coping with the bankruptcies of Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the California Power Exchange.
• Various clients in proceedings to reform CAISO interconnection procedures.
• Various clients in submitting comments on a range of matters at FERC involving restructuring of the California electricity market and in litigating appeals, where necessary, in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
• Various clients in advocating market redesign in California before the CAISO, the CPUC, and FERC.
• Duke Energy Corporation in White House settlement negotiations conducted in January 2001 regarding the 2000-2001 California energy crisis.
• Various clients in negotiating, drafting, and implementing California’s RMR contract for generating units.
• Various clients in the defense and settlement negotiations of challenges to long-term contracts and transactions under the Western Systems Power Pool Agreement.
• Various clients in proceedings involving three regional transmission organizations (RTOs), RTO West, California ISO, and WestConnect, under development in the Western Interconnection. These proceedings addressed issues on the formation of independent transmission companies, export fees, market designs, congestion management methods, and means to assure access to all transmission lines in the region, including those owned by federal utilities, such as Bonneville Power Administration and Western Power Administration, and other governmental utilities.
• Duke Energy Corporation on other Western markets matters, including electric restructuring and refund proceedings before FERC and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company bankruptcy proceedings.
• Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, L.L.C., in a dispute with a transmission provider over rollover rights for system upgrades before FERC.
• Calpine Corporation in litigating and obtaining FERC approval of the terms of RMR agreements. 

General Electricity Market Development

• Major national and regional trade associations (the EPSA, the AWEA, and California Independent Energy Producers) on a variety of federal and state regulatory and policy issues.
  
• Various clients in developing positions before FERC on rulemakings involving: 
  • wholesale market design issues;
    
  • standard business practices;
    
  • a new open access transmission tariff;
    
  • long-term firm transmission rights policies;
    
  • rules implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), including antimanipulation provisions, expansion of FERC’s authority under Section 203 of the FPA to include acquisitions and mergers by holding companies, and revisions to rules for QFs;
    
  • rules implementing the PURPA; and
    
  • rules establishing energy reliability organizations and mandatory reliability standards.
• Various clients regarding the implementation of standards of conduct and codes of conduct and FERC’s proposed integration of gas and electric standards of conduct.
  
• Various clients in drafting the Code of Ethics for Electric Power Suppliers adopted by the EPSA and other groups.
  
• The EPSA on all policy initiatives, including comprehensive regulatory counsel to the EPSA, drafting pleadings, and providing insight on current global policy issues.
  
• Various clients in FERC proceedings on methods to evaluate market-based rate applications and modifications of market rate tariffs to prohibit the abuse of market power.
  
• RES Americas, AWEA, and LS Power regarding regional planning and interconnection and transmission cost allocation.
  
• Selkirk Cogen in the renegotiation of Canadian gas supply contracts.
  
• Various QFs on a variety of issues, including compliance with EPACT 2005, efficiency standards, and filing for market rates.

Electric System Reliability and Operations

Dickstein Shapiro represents clients in all legal aspects of system reliability, including contracting for interconnection and transmission reliability studies, formation of and operation of control areas, establishment of North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and regional standards, negotiation of local area reliability agreements, and use of distributed generation to maintain reliability.

In this capacity, Dickstein Shapiro has represented or currently represents:

• Duke Energy Corporation in establishing control area services as a separate business line, including drafting of contracts, obtaining SEC no-action letters, addressing FERC jurisdictional implications of the service arrangements, establishing operating protocols, and participation in reserve sharing pools.
  
• KeySpan Corporation and the NYPA on New York City reliability issues, including timing, scope, and cost of system upgrade facilities.
  
• Pepco and Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation in drafting and negotiating local area support agreements following the divestiture of their generation.
  
• USGen New England, Inc., in drafting system restoration services tariff and initiating regulatory proceedings to compensate suppliers of
  blackstart-related system restoration and planning service.
  
• Various clients in drafting tariffs, establishing terms, and preparing FERC applications and pleadings related to the provision of emergency re-dispatch services, voltage support, operating reserves, and dynamic scheduling.
  
• Various clients in evaluating proposed reliability criteria and implementing enacted reliability standards by the NERC and the related regional councils. 
  
• Various clients in challenging NERC registration and the applicability of Reliability Standards to certain entities, including:
  • New Harquahala Generating Company in challenging its inclusion in the NERC Registry as a Transmission Owner and Transmission Operator in proceedings before the NERC and FERC (FERC Docket No. RC08-4-000).
    
  • Constellation Energy Commodities Group in challenging its inclusion in the NERC Registry as a Generator Operator in proceedings before the NERC and FERC (FERC Docket No. RC08-7-000).
• Duke Energy Corporation in the formation of national standards boards for electricity.
  
• A mini-turbine supplier, in counseling on FERC jurisdiction over different ownership structures for distributed generation.
  
• Various clients regarding changing control area certification procedures and implementation of the NERC’s reliability standards enforcement.
  
• Merchant generators filing applications with FERC for, and litigating issues related to, reactive power tariffs and revenue requirements and seeking modifications to reactive power provisions of ISO tariffs.

In addition, Dickstein Shapiro has participated in the following related activities:

• Negotiating agreements under the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Reliability Management System.
  
• Negotiating control area interconnection agreements on behalf of new control areas and related contracts between control area operators and security coordinators.
  
• Reviewing and analyzing interconnection/interchange agreements between utility control areas regarding responsibilities and liabilities regarding impacts from third-party generators.
  
• Evaluating and negotiating RMR requirements and agreements for generation facilities and litigating related compensation before FERC.
  
• Participating in forensic review of system operation records (including control room audio and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) data) and generation station records regarding alleged generator imbalances and in development of strategy on negotiations that led to retraction of assessed penalties.
  
• Evaluating reliability and system operation standards of new regional transmission organizations regarding the authority of the RTO and obligations, liability, and compensation of generators; and reviewing proposed RTO system restoration plans regarding same.
  
• Evaluating more than 100 system impact studies (all aspects, including load flow, short circuit, stability, and facility studies) for new generation facilities on behalf of developers and negotiating adjustments and revisions to the studies/upgrades and/or related agreement provisions consistent with maintaining the safe and reliable operation of the transmission system and interconnection criteria of FERC. 
  
• Evaluating a contested request for network integration service from former requirements customer and developing strategy for negotiation and performance of the studies that resulted in a timely grant of service; and analyzing and contesting numerous other transmission system impact studies for generators and marketers.
  
• Completing a survey regarding the liability of load serving entities and system operators for service interruptions and of generators for system disturbances that impact end-use customers.

Interconnection Services, Agreements, and Costs

Dickstein Shapiro participates in the formulation and implementation of, and compliance with, the laws, rules, and policies that govern regional power pools, power and ancillary services markets, transmission planning and operations, and regional transmission organizations. Among other matters, we assist clients in contracting for interconnection and transmission reliability studies and advise clients in connection with negotiations and approvals of generator interconnection agreements.

In this capacity, Dickstein Shapiro has counseled or currently counsels:

• A major U.S. offshore wind developer, in resolving a dispute between the developer and the interconnecting utility regarding the location and physical path of the project’s interconnection line;
• Duke Energy Corporation, the EPSA, and Tampa Electric Company in drafting comments on FERC’s Generator Interconnection Notice of Proposal Rulemaking.
• A number of clients during FERC’s Advanced Notice of Proposal Rulemaking proceedings. The firm played a key role in drafting committees, which resulted in consensus documents adopted by FERC in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
• More than 30 power facilities regarding various interconnection issues. This includes facilities owned by the following companies:
  • Duke Energy North America;
    
  • KeySpan Corporation;
    
  • Calpine Corporation;
    
  • Orion Energy, LLC;
    
  • GenPower Holdings, LP;
    
  • TECO Power Services Corporation;
    
  • PG&E Generating;
    
  • Keystone and Conemaugh Projects;
    
  • Competitive Power Ventures, Inc.;
    
  • Quinnipiac Energy, LLC;
    
  • Invenergy; and
    
  • Horizon Wind Energy.
• Macquarie Cook Power in connection with CAISO reform of its interconnection procedures.
  
• Transmission owners Pepco, Tampa Electric Company, and Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, in drafting and negotiating interconnection agreements.
  
• Duke Energy North America regarding the establishment of generator control areas and associated regulatory implications, including providing advice on amending interconnection agreements regarding current control areas and creating operating reserve agreements.
  
• A coalition of generators participating in the stakeholder processes concerning the development of a pro forma interconnection agreement in the Alliance RTO and Midwest ISO regions.
  
• The New York Power Authority (NYPA) and KeySpan Corporation in litigation regarding the New York Independent System Operator’s (NYISO) calculation of interconnection-related system upgrade costs.
• New Covert Generating Company, LLC, in matters concerning the interconnection of its generating facility.
  
• Masspower in litigation regarding the allocation of responsibility for system upgrade costs.
  
• FERC in the development of its interconnection policy by participating in numerous FERC proceedings concerning generation interconnection procedures and pro forma agreements proposed by various utilities and the wind interconnection rules of various RTOs.
  
• The Duke Arlington Valley generating plant, in negotiations to interconnect the plant to the Palo Verde transmission hub jointly owned by a number of utilities, including municipal and other governmental utility systems. These negotiations involved complex issues among multiple transmission owners and affected generators, including cost allocation and access terms, funding agreements, and unique requirements of municipal and other governmental utility systems.
  
• Duke Moapa Energy Facility in negotiating arrangements with the interconnecting utility and other affected generators to address the impact of generator interconnection on adjacent transmission facilities partially owned and operated by municipal and other governmental utility systems.
  
• Casco Bay Energy Company, LLC in securing NEPOOL approval of the interconnection of the Company’s Maine Independence Station to the NEPOOL grid.
  
• Duke Energy Hinds, LLC and other clients in a proceeding on cost responsibility for network upgrades and outage costs associated with interconnections.
  
• Various clients in providing advice regarding the interconnection of generator clients to transmission facilities owned by federal power marketing agencies and other agencies not subject to FERC’s jurisdiction under Section 205 of the FPA.
  
• Various clients in obtaining interconnection and transmission services from federal utility systems, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Western Area Power Administration, and the Bonneville Power Administration.
  
• Various clients in establishing dual interconnections with two neighboring transmission systems.
  
• Various clients in the formulation of a new transmission product for generators (generator transmission service).