Company: CNLHP
Filing Date: 2025-08-04
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001628280-25-037369
Chunk: 138

Company: CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO
Filing Date: 2025-08-04
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 8
Chunk 138
---
 2018 order to determine the NETOs' base ROEs in their four pending cases. FERC Opinion Nos. 569-A and 569-B were appealed to the Court.  On August 9, 2022, the Court issued its decision vacating MISO ROE FERC Opinion Nos. 569, 569-A and 569-B and remanded to FERC to reopen the proceedings.  The Court found that FERC’s development of the new return methodology was arbitrary and capricious due to FERC’s failure to offer a reasonable explanation for its decision to reintroduce the risk-premium financial model in its new methodology for calculating a just and reasonable return.  

On October 17, 2024, FERC issued an order on the remand of the MISO ROE proceedings. The order addressed the Court’s decision that the reintroduction of the risk-premium financial model in the ROE methodology was arbitrary and capricious by removing the risk-premium financial model from the ROE methodology.  The removal of the risk-premium financial model was the only revision to FERC’s ROE methodology and resulted in a two-model approach utilizing the two-step discounted cash flow model and the capital asset pricing model.  MISO transmission owners were directed to provide refunds for the period November 12, 2013 to February 11, 2015 (the first MISO ROE complaint refund period) and for the period from September 28, 2016 (the date of FERC’s order on the first MISO ROE complaint) to October 17, 2024 by December 1, 2025.  The order also stated that FERC does not preclude the use of the risk-premium financial model in future proceedings if the parties can demonstrate that FERC’s stated concerns around the inclusion of the model have been addressed.  On March 25, 2025, FERC issued an order addressing arguments raised on rehearing, sustaining the result, and denying rehearing. 

On November 13, 2024, the NETOs filed a supplemental brief in their four pending ROE proceedings to explain to FERC that it cannot apply the reasoning and methodologies of the MISO ROE case to the NETOs’ cases due to the entirely different set of facts in the MISO and NETOs ROE proceedings.  Doing so would violate the substance of the Court’s April 14, 2017 order and would violate the legal standard required by the Federal Power