Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01723/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01723-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Respondent
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
Intervenor for Respondent
Sithe/Independence Power Partners, L.P.
Petitioner

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 17, 1998 Decided January 29, 1999

No. 97-1723

Sithe/Independence Power Partners, L.P.,

Petitioner

v.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

Respondent

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation,

Intervenor

On Petition for Review of Orders of the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Richard P. Bress argued the cause for petitioner. With

him on the briefs was David L. Schwartz.

David H. Coffman, Attorney, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, argued the cause for respondent. With him on

USCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 1 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the brief were Jay L. Witkin, Solicitor, and John H. Conway,

Deputy Solicitor.

Edward Berlin argued the cause for intervenor. With him

on the brief were Kenneth G. Jaffe and Michael E. Ward.

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Williams and Ginsburg,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Edwards.

Edwards, Chief Judge: Petitioner Sithe/Independence Power Partners ("Sithe") challenges two orders of the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC" or "Commission"),

dismissing Sithe's complaint against Niagara Mohawk Power

Corporation ("Niagara") and denying rehearing of that dismissal. Pursuant to a 1991 agreement, Sithe, an independent

power producer, receives transmission services from Niagara,

an electric utility. The challenge in this case centers on the

loss component of the overall rate that Sithe pays Niagara for

this service. Sithe argues that, in computing loss rates on an

incremental basis, Niagara is violating established Commission policy, which requires that base and loss rates be computed using a consistent methodology. Sithe also argues that

Niagara's method of assigning loss calculation priorities unfairly discriminates on the basis of a customer's contract date.

In the orders on review, FERC dismissed Sithe's challenge,

finding that Niagara's rate methodology was not inconsistent

with Commission policy, and that the rates charged were not

unduly discriminatory. Because we are unable to ascertain

the basis for the Commission's ruling, we remand this matter

to the Commission for further proceedings.

I. Background

A.Transmission Services Agreement

Sithe owns and operates a cogeneration facility in New

York state. Pursuant to a 1991 power purchase agreement,

Sithe sells the bulk of the electric energy produced at this

facility to Consolidated Edison Company of New York ("Con

Ed"). Niagara, in turn, owns and operates electric generation, distribution, and transmission facilities in New York. In

order to enable the transmission of energy from the cogeneration facility to Con Ed, Sithe entered into a Transmission

Services Agreement ("TSA") with Niagara on November 5,

1991. Under the agreement, which extends for a twenty year

period from the initiation of service, Niagara provides Sithe

with roughly 805 megawatts ("MW") of firm transmission

service and up to 250 MW of interruptible transmission

service. In exchange, Sithe pays Niagara a base transmission rate and also compensates Niagara with in-kind energy

for transmission line losses. FERC accepted the TSA for

filing on February 5, 1992, and accepted a revised version for

filing on July 6, 1994. Service under the TSA commenced on

November 15, 1994.

USCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 2 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Under the TSA, the total charge for transmission service

consists of a base charge for Niagara's embedded costs--i.e.,

construction and operation expenses and a reasonable return

on its investment--plus an additional charge for Niagara's

transmission loss costs--i.e., the costs to the utility of making

up the power loss that inevitably occurs during transmission.

There are at least two basic methodologies that a utility may

use to compute its base and loss rates: the "rolled-in" rate

method and the incremental rate method. The rolled-in rate

methodology charges a rate based on the average cost to the

utility of serving all of its customers on an integrated system.

"[E]ach transmission customer [is treated] not as using a

single transmission path but rather as using the entire transmission system," and, accordingly, "each transmission customer pays its share of the capital costs of the entire system"

based on the amount of electricity it has transmitted over the

system. Northern States Power Co. v. FERC, 30 F.3d 177,

179 (D.C. Cir. 1994). On the other hand, the incremental rate

methodology charges a rate based on how a given customer's

individual use affects the system. Each transmission customer pays an amount that compensates the utility for the

marginal costs that its use imposes, which is a function of

such factors as distance and direction.

The methodology for computing rates in this case was not

clearly specified in the TSA. With respect to the base

USCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 3 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

transmission rate, the rate schedule that is part of the TSA

identified a firm service rate of $1.49 per kilowatt ("kW") per

month, which was later modified to $1.76 per kW per month.

By agreement, this rate was based on the formula that had

governed Niagara's earlier arrangements with New York

State Electric & Gas Corporation ("NYSEG") and Central

Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation ("CHGE"). Yet, the

parties' characterizations of this underlying formula are at

odds. It appears from the record that the $1.76 figure

represents an average of the costs associated with a substantial portion--but not the entirety--of Niagara's transmission

system. In other words, the starting point from which averages are taken excludes investment in a particular substation,

a flat sum of $43.5 million, and various other expenses. In

Sithe's view, then, the formula reflects an average, rolled-in

methodology, even if it does not produce a fully embedded

rate. In Niagara's view, however, the formula reflects a

"hybrid," modified cost-of-service approach that is not "fully

rolled-in."

With respect to the transmission loss rate, the TSA expressly provides for compensation, in the form of in-kind

energy, for losses resulting from Niagara's service to Sithe.

Section 9.1 of the agreement states that:

[Sithe] shall compensate NIAGARA MOHAWK for

losses incurred by NIAGARA MOHAWK in its control

area and NIAGARA MOHAWK shall compensate [Sithe]

for losses avoided by NIAGARA MOHAWK in its control

area as a result of NIAGARA MOHAWK's provision of

transmission services hereunder. The determination of

such losses and the procedure for compensation thereof

shall be determined by NIAGARA MOHAWK's Power

Control Department in accordance with NIAGARA MOHAWK's practices relating to other similar transactions

and in accordance with GOOD UTILITY PRACTICE.

Transmission Services Agreement s 9.1, reprinted in Joint

Appendix ("J.A.") 57. There is a dispute among the parties

as to whether this provision explicitly identifies an incremental loss methodology. Before the Commission, Niagara arUSCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 4 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

gued that this conclusion was dictated by the language of the

agreement, and that Sithe was fully aware of this when it

entered into the agreement. Sithe, for its part, contended

that the provision did not specify any methodology, and that

it was unaware that Niagara employed an incremental approach until Niagara eventually supplied it with information

underlying the rates it was charging, well after execution of

the TSA. The Commission did not make an express finding

on this point.

In any event, there is little dispute that Niagara does, in

fact, compute Sithe's transmission loss charge on an incremental, rather than average, basis. Niagara's approach can

be roughly summarized as follows. First, using a load flow

model, Niagara takes two "snapshots" of its system each

month, one during peak use and one during off-peak use, in

order to determine the amount of energy being transmitted

over the system and the amount of energy lost in transmission. Niagara then extrapolates from this data to calculate

the total transmission losses incurred for each month. Next,

Niagara removes its customers from the model one at a time

and re-calculates losses at each step, thereby arriving at a

marginal loss figure for each customer. To establish the

order of removal, Niagara assigns its customers "priorities"

based on the dates of their firm transmission contracts.

Because transmission losses are a function of the current

flowing over the system, incremental losses decrease exponentially as each load is removed from the calculation--i.e.,

the assigned priority substantially affects the amount of the

loss for which a given customer will be charged. According

to Sithe, "Niagara's use of an incremental loss factor to

assign losses to Sithe instead of using an average, rolled-in

loss factor costs Sithe approximately $10,000 per day."

Amended Brief of Petitioner at 9.

B.Commission Proceedings

On March 29, 1995, Sithe filed a complaint with the Commission pursuant to s 206 of the Federal Power Act ("FPA"),

16 U.S.C. s 824e (1994), challenging Niagara's method of

computing transmission losses under the TSA as unjust,

USCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 5 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory. Sithe contended,

inter alia, that Niagara was violating the Commission's longstanding "matching policy" by using an incremental method

to calculate Sithe's transmission loss charges, while at the

same time using an average rolled-in method to calculate

Sithe's base transmission rate. Sithe also contended that

Niagara's method for determining incremental losses discriminated unfairly among its transmission customers by prioritizing transactions based on contract dates, and by reserving the

highest priority for its own uses of the system. Sithe sought

an order from the Commission finding Niagara's calculation

of transmission losses to be unlawful and directing Niagara to

calculate transmission losses on an average, system-wide

basis.

In its answer, Niagara raised multiple arguments in support of its current method of computing Sithe's rates. First,

Niagara suggested that Commission policy recognizes the

benefits of flexibility in rate structuring and does not strictly

require the use of matching methodologies. Next, Niagara

represented that it does not use a rolled-in methodology to

compute Sithe's base transmission rate, but rather a hybrid

methodology that includes only a portion of Niagara's fixed

costs. On this basis, Niagara argued that it was not required

to compute losses using system-wide averages even if the

matching policy applied. Finally, Niagara attempted to demonstrate that the total rate it charges Sithe is lower than the

total rate it could charge Sithe if it computed both base and

loss rates using a fully rolled-in methodology, and that Sithe

had bargained for this benefit. On this alternative basis,

Niagara asserted that its rates were just and reasonable and,

accordingly, that Sithe had not been harmed.

On September 16, 1996, FERC summarily dismissed

Sithe's complaint. See Sithe/Independence Power Partners,

L.P. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 76 F.E.R.C. p 61,285

(1996) ("Initial Order"). After acknowledging that "Commission policy requires consistency in pricing a utility's transmission capacity charge and transmission losses," the Commission found Niagara's "computation of Sithe's transmission

losses to be consistent with this directive." Id. at 62,458.

USCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 6 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The Commission agreed with Niagara's characterization of

the base transmission rate as reflecting a "hybrid" methodology. See id. The Commission also found that Niagara

charges Sithe a base transmission rate that is "discounted

below its average system cost," and that "[t]he amount of

discount each customer receives is based on the incremental

transmission losses it imposes on [Niagara's] transmission

system." Id. Finally, the Commission reasoned that Niagara's system "allows customers that impose lower variable

costs than other customers to receive a commensurately

larger discount," and, therefore, that Niagara's methodology

does not produce unduly discriminatory or preferential results. Id. at 62,458-59. Although it found Sithe's complaint

to be "without merit," id. at 62,457, the Commission ordered

Niagara to provide Sithe with "sufficient information for Sithe

to verify [Niagara's] calculations of Sithe's transmission losses." Id. at 62,459.

On October 21, 1997, the Commission denied Sithe's request for rehearing. See Sithe/Independence Power Partners, L.P. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 81 F.E.R.C.

p 61,071 (1997) ("Rehearing Order"). In this order, FERC

affirmed its earlier conclusion that Sithe "enjoys a discount

from the maximum legal rate [Niagara] could impose for the

transmission service it provides," id. at 61,301, purporting to

base this conclusion on an "independent analysis" by which it

confirmed that "Sithe's overall transmission rate under its

agreement with [Niagara] is less than it would be if both the

transmission rate and the loss rate were calculated to include

a full allocation of embedded average costs." Id. at 61,301

n.1. FERC also reiterated that, "because [Niagara] reduces

the price to a greater extent for those customers imposing

lower losses, any price disparity that results from using

incremental cost ratemaking to calculate the loss factor portion of the rate does not amount to undue discrimination. All

customers are treated comparably." Id. at 61,301. After

finding that Sithe enjoys a discount, the Commission went on

to deem Sithe's arguments on this score "irrelevant," as

FERC's "ratemaking practices allow [Niagara], because it

used a hybrid method to compute Sithe's transmission rates,

USCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 7 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

to consider incremental costs in computing transmission losses" without violating the "matching" rule. Id. at 61,302. As

additional support for its finding of no undue discrimination,

the Commission noted that Sithe had "freely negotiated" its

rates, and that FERC does not consider rate disparities

inappropriate where they result from arm's-length negotiations. Id. Finally, the Commission concluded that Sithe's

argument concerning a violation of the matching policy failed

because Sithe incorrectly presumed that its base rate incorporated Niagara's full average costs. See id.

This petition for review followed.

II. Analysis

A.Standard of Review

We review FERC orders under the Administrative Procedure Act's ("APA") arbitrary and capricious standard. See

Union Pac. Fuels, Inc. v. FERC, 129 F.3d 157, 161 (D.C. Cir.

1997); 5 U.S.C. s 706(2)(A) (1994). Because " '[i]ssues of

rate design are fairly technical and, insofar as they are not

technical, involve policy judgments that lie at the core of the

regulatory mission,' our review of whether a particular rate

design is 'just and reasonable' is highly deferential." Northern States, 30 F.3d at 180 (quoting Town of Norwood v.

FERC, 962 F.2d 20, 22 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). Nonetheless, such

review is not an "empty gesture." Id. "[T]he Commission

must be able to demonstrate that it has 'made a reasoned

decision based upon substantial evidence in the record,' " id.

(quoting Town of Norwood, 962 F.2d at 22), and the "path of

[its] reasoning" must be clear. Id. at 182.

B.Review of Commission Orders

Because Sithe is challenging Niagara's existing rates, its

claim must be brought pursuant to s 206, rather than s 205,

of the FPA. Section 206(a) provides, in relevant part, that:

[w]henever the Commission, after a hearing had upon its

own motion or upon complaint, shall find that any rate,

charge, or classification, demanded, observed, charged,

or collected by any public utility for any transmission or

sale subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or that

any rule, regulation, practice, or contract affecting such

rate, charge, or classification is unjust, unreasonable,

unduly discriminatory or preferential, the Commission

shall determine the just and reasonable rate, charge,

classification, rule, regulation, practice, or contract to be

thereafter observed and in force, and shall fix the same

by order.

16 U.S.C. s 824e(a). As complainant, Sithe bore the burden

in this proceeding of demonstrating that Niagara breached

the statutory just and reasonable standard. See id.

s 824e(b); Alabama Power Co. v. FERC, 993 F.2d 1557, 1571

(D.C. Cir. 1993). By dismissing Sithe's complaint in the

USCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 8 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

orders on review, then, the Commission implicitly found that

Sithe did not satisfy its burden--either that it failed to

establish its prima facie case, or that Niagara had effectively

rebutted that case.

The core of Sithe's complaint in this case is that the

transmission loss component of Niagara's rate violates the

Commission's long-standing policy requiring that the base

and loss elements of an overall rate be computed using

consistent methodologies. Sithe's position rests on its contention that Niagara's rate components do not "match," because

its base rate is calculated on a rolled-in basis, while its loss

rate is calculated on an incremental basis. In its brief to this

court, Sithe goes so far as to suggest that these characterizations are "undisputed", see Amended Brief of Petitioner at 16,

but that is a stretch. To be sure, there does not appear to be

much dispute that Niagara computes Sithe's loss rate on an

incremental basis. See 81 F.E.R.C. at 61,301. As noted

earlier, however, there is considerable disagreement concerning the appropriate characterization of the methodology by

which Niagara computes Sithe's base rate: Sithe argues that

it is an "average, rolled-in" approach, whereas Niagara argues that it is a "modified cost-of-service" approach that is

not "fully rolled-in." The record, as far as we can tell,

suggests that this calculation makes use of an average formula, but does not incorporate the full complement of Niagara's

USCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 9 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

costs, as it excludes investment in certain facilities, a flat sum,

and various expenses.

Whatever the appropriate description of this disputed

methodology (fully rolled-in, partially rolled-in, or not rolledin at all), it is clear that Niagara does not use the same

approach to calculate both the base and loss components of its

rate. This would appear to defy FERC's well-established

policy of requiring utilities to compute the base and loss

components of their transmission rates using consistent methodologies. See, e.g., Northern States Power Co., 59 F.E.R.C.

p 61,100, at 61,369, reh'g denied, 60 F.E.R.C. p 61,076, at

61,252-53 & n.25 (1992), clarification denied, 64 F.E.R.C.

p 61,111, at 61,920 (1993), aff'd sub nom. Northern States

Power Co. v. FERC, 30 F.3d 177 (D.C. Cir. 1994). In the

Northern States proceeding, FERC stated that it "does not

allow the use of incremental loss factors when the transmission charge is developed on a rolled-in basis." 59 F.E.R.C. at

61,369. It further explained that:

[t]his policy flows directly from the Commission's longstanding practice of requiring that the demand and energy components of a rate be calculated on the same basis.

Where, as here, the customer pays for average fixed

costs rather than the fixed costs of only certain incremental facilities, logic dictates that the customer pay for

average variable costs in the energy charge.

Id. In upholding the Commission's application of this

"matching" policy, this court recognized that, because rolledin costing assumes that each customer in an integrated

system "enjoys the benefits of the transmission system as an

integrated whole," it makes sense to hold "each customer ...

responsible for an indivisible portion of the transmission

system losses imposed upon the system by the configuration

of the group of customers using it at any one time." Northern States, 30 F.3d at 182. Where, then, is the Commission's

explanation for not requiring "matching" methodologies in

this case?

The Commission purported to re-affirm its "matching"

policy in the orders on review, see 76 F.E.R.C. at 62,458, but

concluded that Sithe had failed to establish a violation thereof. In so holding, however, FERC neither provided a clear

explanation of its rationale nor revealed the data and assumptions underlying its findings. On the record before us, therefore, we are unable to satisfy ourselves that the Commission

engaged in reasoned decision making and reached conclusions

supported by the record. Indeed, we are unable to penetrate

the logic of FERC's orders to ascertain whether FERC in

fact departed from established policy and precedent and, if so,

whether it justified that departure. Cf. Northern States, 30

F.3d at 180 ("[T]he Commission must be able to demonstrate

that it has 'made a reasoned decision based upon substantial

evidence in the record.' ") (quoting Town of Norwood, 962

F.2d at 22); Hatch v. FERC, 654 F.2d 825, 834 (D.C. Cir.

1981) ("[A]n agency must provide a reasoned explanation for

USCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 10 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

any failure to adhere to its own precedents.").

The Commission's position could be, as both FERC's appellate counsel and Niagara urge before this court, that the

"matching policy" is not implicated in this case, because

Niagara does not compute its base transmission rate on a

fully rolled-in basis. See Brief for Respondent at 19; Brief of

Intervenor at 9. Indeed, if we stretch our imagination, we

might even conclude that a single sentence in the Rehearing

Order, indicating that Sithe's "matching" argument failed

because it "incorrectly presumes that [Niagara] developed

Sithe's transmission rates using full average costs while

Sithe's transmission losses were based on incremental costs,"

81 F.E.R.C. at 61,302 (emphasis in original), lends some

support to the view pressed by FERC's appellate counsel and

Niagara. And this argument is tempting, for it avoids the

absurdities that are faced in any attempt to employ a "matching" rule in this case--the notion of "matching" is utterly

baffling when the methodologies themselves are impure, as

with Niagara's base rate in this case. What, we wonder,

would "match" this rate, which apparently resulted from a

negotiated compromise?

The problem, however, is that FERC did not articulate the

rationale that appellate counsel and Niagara now propound.

USCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 11 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Thus, we cannot accept this articulation of the agency's

judgment. As we explained in Hatch:

Without any explicit recognition by the Commission that

the standard has been changed, or any attempt to forthrightly distinguish or outrightly reject apparently inconsistent precedent, we are left with no guideposts for

determining the consistency of administrative action in

similar cases, or for accurately predicting future action

by the Commission. The failure to admit or explain such

a basic change in the interpretation of a statutory standard to be applied to conduct of the public undermines

the integrity of the administrative process.

654 F.2d at 834-35 (footnote omitted).

The bottom line is that, if the asserted conclusion were so

obvious, it would have been a simple task for FERC to clearly

state and support the view that its matching rule does not, or

even should not, apply unless the base rate is fully rolled-in.

FERC did not do this, so we cannot rely on the theory now

advanced by its appellate counsel. See SEC v. Chenery

Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943). The simple fact here is that

FERC purported to apply the "matching rule" in a situation

in which the disputed rate methodologies concededly do not

match.

Alternatively, the Commission's ruling arguably could rest

on the finding that the rate paid by Sithe to Niagara reflects

a discount below Niagara's average system costs. See 76

F.E.R.C. at 62,458; 81 F.E.R.C. at 61,301 & n.1. Yet, FERC

did not elaborate on what significance, if any, it ascribed to

this purported discount. Compare 76 F.E.R.C. at 62,458

(apparently relying on the existence of the discount in deeming Niagara's methodology consistent with the matching rule),

with 81 F.E.R.C. at 61,302 (describing as "irrelevant" Sithe's

argument that it did not receive a discount from Niagara).

For instance, FERC may have considered this discount in

deciding that Niagara's base rate was hybrid, rather than

purely rolled-in. Or, FERC may have accepted an inference

that Sithe pays an overall rate--both cost and loss components--that is less than it would pay if Niagara computed

both costs and losses using a fully rolled-in method and,

accordingly, that the rate is reasonable notwithstanding any

noncompliance with the matching policy.

Niagara urges this second view, stating that "[b]y requiring

consistent application of rolled-in or incremental methodologies, the Commission has created a short-hand means for

preventing excessive rates." Brief of Intervenor at 9. In

other words, "[i]f the 'end result' of the combined rate is less

than the just and reasonable rate produced by consistent

methodologies, then the rate is ipso facto just and reasonable." Id. at 11. Lending some support to this view, we

have, in the past, suggested that the use of a so-called

"comparison rate"--comparing the rate charged to the rate

that could lawfully have been charged--seems "eminently

USCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 12 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

reasonable." City of Holyoke Gas & Elec. Dep't v. FERC,

954 F.2d 740, 742 (D.C. Cir. 1992). FERC, however, did not

state this rationale in the orders below.

It is also noteworthy that the Commission itself has, in the

past, interpreted the s 206 burden scheme to require a

customer seeking an investigation into existing rates to "provide some basis to question the reasonableness of the overall

rate level, taking into account changes in all cost components

and not just [the challenged component]." Houlton Water

Co., 55 F.E.R.C. p 61,037, at 61,110 (1991); see also City of

Hamilton, Ohio and Am. Mun. Power-Ohio, Inc. v. Kentucky Power Co. and Ohio Power Co., 72 F.E.R.C. p 61,158, at

61,785-86 (1995) (dismissing, without prejudice to re-filing, a

customer's s 206 complaint because it failed to satisfy the

threshold of providing a basis to question the overall reasonableness of the utility's rates). Although it appears that

Sithe never made a proffer to show net harm under Niagara's

existing scheme, FERC did not articulate this as its basis for

dismissing Sithe's complaint. In short, we cannot uphold

FERC's reliance on the discount without a clearer explanation of the basis for that reliance.

We find, moreover, that the Commission's reasoning was

cryptic with respect to its finding that Sithe receives a

discount. The Commission offered no indication of what

USCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 13 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

exactly its "independent analysis" entailed or what issues it

considered. Cf. Maine Pub. Serv. Co. v. FERC, 964 F.2d 5, 9

(D.C. Cir. 1992) (remanding in part because "the Commission's analysis ... contains no explanation of how it derived

the [relevant] figure"); City of Holyoke, 954 F.2d at 743

("The Commission must support its decision with enough data

to enable an adversely affected party and by extension a

reviewing court, to understand its calculation of the comparison rate upon which it would rely, as well as the underlying

assumptions."). Because the Commission in this case failed

to disclose its calculations, we do not know whether it simply

adopted Niagara's figures and, if so, why. We also have no

basis to confirm FERC's assumptions--for instance, we are

left to wonder if it considered whether Niagara's variable

costs, such as transmission line losses, would remain constant

and, therefore, whether the alleged discount would actually

exist over the long term. If the Commission does, in fact,

intend to rely on the existence of a discount to support its

disposition of this case, it must clarify its reasoning and

support its findings in this regard.

As a final matter, we note that Sithe also raised an undue

discrimination claim in this case, based on Niagara's method

of prioritizing its customers for the purpose of assigning

transmission losses. Under Niagara's system for calculating

losses, the order in which customers are removed from the

model substantially affects the losses for which they are

charged. Sithe argued, on rehearing and before this court,

that the Commission failed to address this argument. We are

not so sure. Throughout both orders, FERC made reference

to the issue of undue discrimination, apparently rejecting

Sithe's claim because Niagara's customers are treated "comparably," and because Sithe "freely negotiated" its rates. See

81 F.E.R.C. at 61,301-02. FERC did not, however, explicitly

discuss contract dates per se, leaving us simply to infer that a

customer with a later contract date imposes greater losses on

Niagara's system by the sheer fact of added volume. On

remand, FERC should clarify its ruling on this point. In so

doing, FERC must be careful to eschew any assumption that,

where aggregation of load increases average costs, the costs a

USCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 14 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

customer "imposes" on a system depend on the sequence in

which the customers are added. As we noted in Town of

Norwood,

Each customer's contribution to the coincident peak load

"causes" the costs associated with the peak, regardless of

whether that contribution comes from the customer's

increasing, or its failing to diminish, its historic consumption.

962 F.2d at 24 n.1 (emphasis added). In the meantime, we

express no view on the merits of Sithe's undue discrimination

claim.

III. Conclusion

In sum, although the Commission's dismissal of Sithe's

complaint may be justifiable, we cannot find "the path of

[FERC's] reasoning" in the orders on review. Northern

States, 30 F.3d at 182. FERC did not discuss the precedent,

if any, upon which it relied or chose not to rely; nor did it

disclose in any meaningful way the underlying data and

assumptions that supported its factual findings. Because we

are unable to ascertain whether the Commission's basic conclusion is that Niagara complied with the matching policy,

that the matching policy does not apply in this case, or that

for some other reason Sithe has failed to satisfy its burden

under FPA s 206, we remand to the agency for further

proceedings.

So ordered.

USCA Case #97-1723 Document #412744 Filed: 01/29/1999 Page 15 of 15