FERC Reverses Course on State Laws in Transmission Planning

May 27, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

Consistent with this principle, the Commission required PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (SCE&G) to remove language in their Commission-jurisdictional tariffs and agreements requiring an incumbent transmission owner to build a transmission project when required by state law to do so.  Some parties argued on rehearing that, rather than creating a prohibited federal ROFR, these provisions instead merely acknowledged state law.  These parties noted that Order No. 1000 does not “limit, preempt, or otherwise affect state or local laws or regulations with respect to construction of transmission facilities.”3   

After reconsidering the issue, the Commission decided that it would not prohibit these entities from recognizing state and local laws in FERC-jurisdictional tariffs and agreements when selecting the developer for a transmission project.  Regardless of what the Commission-jurisdictional tariffs and agreements provide, the Commission reasoned that some state or local laws may independently prohibit non-incumbent developers from developing a transmission project.  The Commission stated that failure to recognize these state preferences in the FERC tariff could delay the completion of needed transmission infrastructure.  The orders did not alter the existing prohibition on federal ROFRs.    

Commissioner Norris issued a partial dissent, arguing that the majority’s holding undermines the policy goals of Order No. 1000 by tilting the playing field in favor of incumbent transmission providers.  Commissioner Norris argued that by favoring incumbents, the majority was impeding the innovation in transmission solutions that Order No. 1000 was intended to foster.  Commissioner Norris also asserted that the majority’s holding contradicts the plain language of Order No. 1000, which states that requiring a developer to demonstrate that it has or can obtain state approvals necessary to be eligible to propose a transmission facility would be an “impermissible barrier to entry.”4


1 For a copy of the Commission orders, click here, here, and here.

2 Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Order No. 1000, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,323 at p. 313 (2011).

3 Order No. 1000-A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132, at p. 381 (2012).

4 Id. at p. 441.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 24, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) directing NYISO and NYISO transmission owners to show cause as to why NYISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 23, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) directing MISO and MISO transmission owners to show cause as to why MISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 23, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. directing PJM and PJM transmission owners to show cause as to why PJM’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.