142 FERC ¶ 61,157 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; 

 Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, 

 Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony Clark. 

Louisville Gas and Electric Company Docket Nos. ER13-553-000 

EL13-46-000 

ORDER ACCEPTING PROPOSED TARIFF REVISIONS AND ESTABLISHING 

HEARING AND SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES 

(Issued February 28, 2013) 

1. In this order, we accept the tariff revisions submitted by Louisville Gas and 

Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities Company (KU)1 (collectively, 

LG&E/KU), pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),2

 to implement a 

reduction in the transmission loss factor in Schedule 11 (Loss Compensation Service) 

of the LG&E/KU joint Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT).3

 As discussed 

below, we set the proposed tariff for hearing and settlement judge procedures, and 

accept it, to be effective March 1, 2013, subject to further reduction and refunds, 

 1

 LG&E properly made this joint tariff filing, pursuant to Order No. 714, on 

behalf of itself and KU. KU therefore automatically is considered a party to this 

proceeding. We note, however, that KU is not listed on the Commission’s service list 

because LG&E did not designate KU as an “Additional Applicant” in the 

Commission’s eFiling system at the time of its filing. We remind the industry that, if 

a company that is designated as the filer of a joint or shared tariff wants an additional 

company or companies listed on the service list, it must designate the additional 

company or companies as an “Additional Applicant” when it makes the filing in the 

Commission’s eFiling system. 

2

 16 U.S.C. § 824d (2006). 

3

 Louisville Gas and Electric Company, FERC FPA Electric Tariff. 

Transmission. Part IV_SCHED 11, Part IV_SCHED 11 Loss Compensation Service, 

4.0.0. 
Docket Nos. ER13-553-000 and EL13-46-000 - 2 -

should they be found appropriate in the investigation we institute pursuant to 

section 206 of the FPA.4

 

I. Background

A. Loss Compensation Service

2. Schedule 11 (Loss Compensation Service) of the OATT currently states: 

Capacity and energy losses occur when a Transmission 

Owner [LG&E/KU] delivers electricity across its 

transmission facilities for a Transmission Customer. A 

Transmission Customer may elect to: (1) supply the 

capacity and/or energy necessary to compensate the 

Transmission Owner for such losses [in-kind losses], 

(2) receive an amount of electricity at delivery points that 

is reduced by the amount of losses incurred by the 

Transmission Owner, or (3) with the concurrence of the 

Transmission Owner, have the Transmission Owner 

supply the capacity and/or energy necessary to 

compensate for such losses. 

The loss factor used to determine the amount of losses 

associated with the use of facilities other than distribution 

facilities shall be three (3) percent. For Point-to-Point 

Transmission Service, the Transmission Owner will 

determine such losses by dividing the sum of hourly 

energy scheduled to be delivered to the Transmission 

Customer’s Points of Delivery by 0.97 less the amount 

scheduled to be delivered. Subject to the final sentence of 

this paragraph, losses to be supplied by the Transmission 

Customer for Network Integration Service will be 

3 percent of that hour’s actual Network Load. However, 

in no event shall the losses determination result in the 

Transmission Owner being under compensated after any 

hour. To the extent that an existing or potential new 

Network Customer with behind-the-meter generation, 

raises any concern regarding the loss calculation for load 

served with its behind-the-meter generation, the 

Transmission Owner will address such concerns on a 

 4

 16 U.S.C. § 824e (2006). 
Docket Nos. ER13-553-000 and EL13-46-000 - 3 -

case-by-case basis in the Service Agreement. 

If the Transmission Owner and Transmission Customer 

agree to have the Transmission Owner compensated for 

losses under option 3 above, the Transmission Customer 

shall be charged for Loss Compensation Service at a rate 

not to exceed 100 percent of the Transmission Owner’s 

incremental cost to produce energy after serving all other 

obligations (including economy and opportunity 

transactions) and a Generation Capacity Loss Adder of 

$0.006 per kWh. 

B. 2010 Settlement 

3. On October 8, 2010, the Commission approved a Joint Offer of Settlement 

(2010 Settlement)5

 resolving a dispute regarding the appropriate transmission loss 

factor that E.ON6

 should use under the LG&E/KU joint OATT and whether the load 

served from the behind-the-meter resources of the Kentucky Municipals should be 

included in the calculation of transmission losses. Article II of the 2010 Settlement 

provides that E.ON (now LG&E/KU) will conduct an updated Transmission Loss 

Study after the new Trimble County Station No. 2 generator and associated 

transmission facilities have been in service for at least one year, and submit a filing to 

the Commission including the results of its updated study and revisions to the OATT 

to apply the updated loss factor prospectively. Additionally, LG&E/KU committed to 

providing stakeholders with a plan for the Transmission Loss Study, as well as a 

means for stakeholders to provide comments on the study methodology; however, 

LG&E/KU expressly reserved the right to determine the final study methodology, 

subject to, among other things, the rights of settling parties and participants to protest 

the study and its results when it is filed with the Commission. 

4. The 2010 Settlement also provides for: (1) true-up procedures, pursuant to 

which, if the Transmission Loss Study results in a transmission loss factor for 

LG&E/KU of less than 3 percent, LG&E/KU would provide refunds retroactively to 

January 29, 2010, for all over-collected losses associated with Kentucky Municipals’ 

 5 E.ON U.S. LLC, 133 FERC ¶ 61,024 (2010) (resolving all issues set for 

hearing and settlement judge procedures between LG&E, KU, Owensboro Municipal 

Utilities (OMU) and Kentucky Municipal Power Agency (KMPA) (together, 

Kentucky Municipals), and American Municipal Power, Inc.). 

6

 At the time of the Settlement was filed, LG&E/KU were wholly-owned 

subsidiaries of E.ON USA, LLC. 
Docket Nos. ER13-553-000 and EL13-46-000 - 4 -

Network Load not served by behind-the-meter generation and all point-to-point 

transmission service used by Kentucky Municipals; (2) resolution of issues related to 

Kentucky Municipals’ Network Load served by behind-the-meter generation; and 

(3) interim relief related to transmission losses related to Kentucky Municipals’ 

Network Load served with behind-the-meter generation. 

C. LG&E/KU Filing 

5. In the December 13, 2012 filing, LG&E/KU propose to revise Schedule 11 of 

the OATT to reduce the transmission loss factor to 2.048 percent (from 3 percent) 

used to determine losses associated with the use of facilities other than distribution 

facilities. LG&E/KU request an effective date of March 1, 2013. According to 

LG&E/KU, the 2.048 percent transmission loss factor will generally be applied to 

Network Service, and the divisor for determining losses for Point-to-Point 

Transmission Service will change to 0.97952 (from 0.97) reflecting the change from 

3 percent to 2.048 percent. 

 

6. The Trimble County Station No. 2 generator commenced service in January 

2011. To comply with the terms of the 2010 Settlement, LG&E/KU completed a 

Transmission Loss Study for the twelve month period beginning February 1, 2011 

(representing one year of service of Trimble County Station No. 2) showing a 

2.048 percent transmission loss factor. LG&E/KU state that the proposed reduced 

transmission loss factor was determined through the Transmission Loss Study 

conducted by Paul M. Normand.7

 According to Mr. Normand, the Transmission Loss 

Study used three seasonal power flow models to form the basis for 8,760 simulations 

in order to collect a year’s worth of data; the results yielded a loss factor of 

2.048 percent, down from the currently-effective 3 percent.8

7. LG&E/KU state that the 2010 Settlement stipulated that LG&E/KU permit 

stakeholders to have input regarding the methodology and assumptions used in 

performing the Transmission Loss Study. LG&E/KU state it commenced outreach 

efforts in November 2011, providing stakeholders with a written overview of the 

study process, including the time period to be studied, how the LG&E and KU 

systems would be separately studied, the data that would be used for hourly loads, the 

voltage levels to be studied, how new facilities would be addressed, and the overall 

loss calculation method. LG&E/KU held a conference call with stakeholders on 

December 13, 2011 to discuss the overview, and a more detailed technical conference 

was held on January 20, 2012 discussing the loss study methodology. LG&E/KU 

 7 See Initial Test. of Paul M. Normand, Ex. No. LG&E/KU-1. 

8 Id. 
Docket Nos. ER13-553-000 and EL13-46-000 - 5 -

state that final comments were requested on the Transmission Loss Study by 

January 27, 2012.9

 

8. Lastly, LG&E/KU request a waiver of section 35.13 of the Commission’s 

regulations which relates to the requirement to provide Period I and Period II cost-ofservice statements because the proposed changes relate solely to the implementation 

of a new reduced loss factor under Schedule 11 of the OATT.10

II. Notice of Filing and Responsive Pleadings

9. Notice of LG&E/KU’s filing was published in the Federal Register, 77 Fed. 

Reg. 76,023 (2012), with interventions and protests due on or before January 3, 2013. 

The Kentucky municipal requirements customers of KU, OMU and KMPA and its 

members, Paducah Power System and the Princeton Electric Plant Board 

(collectively, Kentucky Municipals) jointly filed a timely motion to intervene and 

protest, requesting a hearing and settlement procedures. LG&E/KU filed an answer to 

Kentucky Municipals protest. Kentucky Municipals filed an answer to the LG&E/KU 

answer. LG&E/KU filed an answer responding to Kentucky Municipals’ answer. 

A. Kentucky Municipals Protest

 

10. In their Protest, Kentucky Municipals state that, despite the LG&E/KU 

presentation of their plan for the Transmission Loss Study, it was not possible to 

reach consensus on the methodology for the study. Kentucky Municipals argue that 

LG&E/KU did not provide enough details for stakeholders to meaningfully evaluate 

the methodology.11 Kentucky Municipals also state that they requested a live 

demonstration of the loss study model, but LG&E/KU declined.12 Further, Kentucky 

Municipals indicate that they requested that LG&E/KU preserve and provide all 

communications, preliminary results, study revisions, etc., for review by Kentucky 

Municipals, but they did not receive any of this information.13 Kentucky Municipals 

explain that they were concerned (because the study results were not released when 

 9

 LG&E/KU Filing at 3-4. 

10 Id. at 7. 

11 Kentucky Municipals Protest at 5. 

12 Id. at 6. 

13 Id. at 6-7. 
Docket Nos. ER13-553-000 and EL13-46-000 - 6 -

originally expected) that there were undisclosed initial results that were unfavorable 

for LG&E/KU.14 

 

11. Kentucky Municipals acknowledge that LG&E/KU has the right under the 

2010 Settlement “to determine the final study methodology,” but argue that the study 

itself does not contain sufficient information to allow the Commission to make a 

reasoned conclusion as to whether the new transmission loss factor is just and 

reasonable.15 Kentucky Municipals state that, although the models involved in the 

study “take into account the physical nature of the transmission facilities, including 

the geographic location and type of generation facilities, customer loads, and electric 

system substation interconnections, to determine a mathematical solution of predefined system conditions,” no details are provided as to how those elements are 

taken into account, or any description of what “pre-defined system conditions” were 

selected.16

12. Kentucky Municipals further state that, although LG&E/KU testimony 

explains that, “the study used three seasonal power flow models for the LG&E and 

KU systems separately,” nothing explains modeling differences over the three 

seasons, including which generation and transmission units are in service each season, 

and the reasons for those assumptions.17 Furthermore, Kentucky Municipals state that 

it is not possible to determine how Mr. Normand arrived at the hourly losses that 

ultimately determine the total transmission loss.18

13. Similarly, Kentucky Municipals comment that, though certain amounts 

identified in the LG&E/KU study as “GSU losses” were subtracted from the estimated 

total losses on the LG&E/KU systems, there is no way to know if those amounts were 

reasonably determined.19 Kentucky Municipals maintain that the seasonal simulation 

 14 Kentucky Municipals point out that the 2010 Settlement states that “[t]he 

Settling Parties anticipate that the loss study will take approximately 2-3 months to 

prepare” (2010 Settlement, Article C). Kentucky Municipals argue that after the data 

was gathered this corresponds to a May, 2012 completion date. 

15 Kentucky Municipals Protest at 6-7. 

16 Id. at 8. 

17 Id. 

18 Id. at 9. 

19 Id; “GSU” refers to “generator step-up” units, facilities excluded from the 

loss study per the 2010 Settlement. 
Docket Nos. ER13-553-000 and EL13-46-000 - 7 -

models were conducted within a “black box,” in which the results are outputted with 

no way to shed light on the validity of the algorithms leading to the results.20 

Kentucky Municipals make the same argument concerning “no-load losses” because 

they are offered in the study without any discussion concerning how they were 

estimated.21 Kentucky Municipals suggest that a protective order would allow review 

of a potentially proprietary simulation model.22

14. Kentucky Municipals also point out inconsistencies and apparent errors in 

the Transmission Loss Study. Kentucky Municipals explain that even though 

Mr. Normand’s testimony describes three seasons used for the study, the study is 

organized into two seasons.23 Furthermore, Kentucky Municipals claim that the 

explanatory note (5) is intended to state that, Transmission Variable “excludes” 

Losses at 0.5 percent—instead of using the word “includes”—in the Transmission 

Variable column in Mr. Normand’s Schedule 5 of Ex. No. LG&E/KU-4.24 Lastly, 

Kentucky Municipals state that there is an arithmetic error which causes the losses for 

which customers are responsible to be overstated.25 Kentucky Municipals assert that 

the correct divisor should be 0.97993, in lieu of the proposed divisor of 0.97952.26

B. LG&E/KU Answer

15. In its January 18, 2013 Answer to Kentucky Municipals’ Protest, LG&E/KU 

explain that its proposed reduction to the transmission loss factor is adequately 

supported, and contends that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute.27 

 20 Id. 

21 Id. at 10; “No-load losses” includes transformer core losses, conductor 

corona, insulator losses, and substation unmetered auxiliary energy use. Ex. No. 

LG&E/KU-1 at Page 5, Lines 18-21. 

22 Id. at 8. 

23 Id. at 8-9. 

24 Id. at 10. 

25 Id. 

26 Id.; Kentucky Municipals point out that LG&E/KU incorrectly subtracted 

0.02048 from 1.00, arriving at 0.97952, while the correct derivation divides 1.00 by 

1.0248, resulting in 0.97993. 

27 LG&E/KU Answer at 6-7. 
Docket Nos. ER13-553-000 and EL13-46-000 - 8 -

LG&E/KU contend that further inquiry into the power flow simulation modeling 

software is not possible because LG&E/KU does not own the software; its use is 

instead licensed. LG&E/KU also claim that this software product cannot be filed with 

the Commission.28

16. LG&E/KU concede that certain aspects of its filing are incorrect or misstated. 

LG&E/KU clarify that the data listed on Appendix B, Line 22 of Ex. No. LG&E/KU4 of the filing should reference Lines 1 and 4 of Ex. No. LG&E/KU-4, Schedule 5, 

and the data listed on Appendix B, Line 34 should reference Lines 1 and 4 of 

Schedule 4 of the Exhibit. Additionally, LG&E/KU state that note 4 on Schedule 5 

should read “Transmission Variable excludes Losses at 0.5% from Appendix A 

(Monthly MWH Losses) and Appendix B (Monthly MWH Energy).” LG&E/KU 

further state that the divisor stated in Schedule 11 of its OATT should be 0.97993 

rather than 0.97952 as filed by LG&E.29

C. Kentucky Municipals Answer

17. In the Answer of Kentucky Municipals filed February 4, 2013, Kentucky 

Municipals argue that LG&E/KU’s answer fails to demonstrate that the new proposed 

loss factor is just and reasonable.30 Furthermore, Kentucky Municipals assert that 

LG&E/KU, by refusing to provide readily available, relevant information about the 

Transmission Loss Study, has failed to comply with the 2010 Settlement. 

Specifically, Kentucky Municipals contend that LG&E/KU’s answer offers no 

explanation why the Transmission Loss Study took significantly longer to complete 

than had been anticipated by the terms of the 2010 Settlement. In addition, Kentucky 

Municipals argue that LG&E/KU has continued to refuse to provide information 

about how the seasonal representations of its transmission system in the power flow 

model differed from one another and what impact those differences had upon the 

study results.31 Kentucky Municipals also maintain LG&E/KU has failed to produce 

information regarding the assumptions that affected the inputs into the study, and how 

those assumptions and inputs affected the results, as well as any justification for 

changes to the assumption. Finally, Kentucky Municipals dismiss LG&E/KU’s 

argument that the power flow simulation model includes licensed software. Kentucky 

Municipals contend that, to the extent that LG&E/KU and its consultant may have 

already used the model to produce a range of results based on varying assumptions, it 

 28 Id. at 9. 

29 Id. at 9-10. 

30 Kentucky Municipals Answer at 1. 

31 Id. at 3. 
Docket Nos. ER13-553-000 and EL13-46-000 - 9 -

may not be necessary to conduct further runs to determine that the results selected 

were not reasonable.32

D. LG&E/KU Answer to Kentucky Municipals’ Answer

 

18. LG&E/KU assert that they have provided sufficient detail for the Commission 

to determine that the proposed reduction in the transmission loss factor is just and 

reasonable. LG&E/KU argue that they have fully complied with the terms of the 

2010 Settlement by providing stakeholders with a written overview of the study 

process, conducting a conference call with stakeholders to address preliminary 

questions, and conducting a more detailed conference call with stakeholders that 

allowed for participation from stakeholders’ outside experts. LG&E/KU contend that 

nothing in the 2010 Settlement supports Kentucky Municipals’ claim that LG&E/KU 

were required to include Kentucky Municipals in the implementation of the plan, or to 

provide them with “preliminary results” or other additional information regarding the 

loss study.33

III. Discussion

A. Procedural Matters

19. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 

18 C.F.R. § 385.214 (2012), the timely, unopposed motion to intervene of Kentucky 

Municipals serves to make them parties to this proceeding. 

20. Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 

18 C.F.R. § 385.213(a)(2) (2012), prohibits an answer to a protest unless otherwise 

ordered by the decisional authority. We will accept the answers of LG&E/KU and 

Kentucky Municipals because they have provided information that assisted us in our 

decision-making process. 

B. Commission Determination

21. Upon review, we find that the proposed tariff revisions raise issues of material 

fact that cannot be resolved based on the record before us, and that are more 

appropriately addressed in the hearing and settlement judge procedures ordered 

below. Our preliminary analysis indicates that the LG&E/KU proposed tariff 

revisions have not been shown to be just and reasonable and may be unjust, 

unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful. 

 32 Id. at 4-5. 

33 LG&E/KU’s Answer to Kentucky Municipal’s Answer at 3-4. 
Docket Nos. ER13-553-000 and EL13-46-000 - 10 -

Accordingly, we will accept the LG&E/KU proposed tariff revisions to become 

effective March 1, 2013, and set them for hearing. 

22. In addition, while LG&E/KU are proposing a rate decrease, our preliminary 

review indicates that a further decrease may be warranted. Accordingly, we will also 

institute a section 206 investigation in Docket No. EL13-46-000 with respect to the 

justness and reasonableness of LG&E/KU’s proposed rate decrease. 

 

23. In cases where, as here, the Commission institutes an investigation on its own 

motion, section 206(b) of the FPA, as amended by section 1285 of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005,34 requires that the Commission establish a refund effective date that is 

no earlier than publication of the notice of the Commission’s initiation of i

investigation in the Federal Register, and no later than five months after the 

publication date. Consistent with our general policy of providing maximum 

protection to customers

ts 

 

35 we will establish the refund effective date at the earliest date 

possible, i.e., the date the initiation of investigation in Docket No. EL13-46-000 is 

published in the Federal Register. 

 

24. Section 206(b) also requires that, if no final decision is rendered by the refund 

effective date or by the inclusion of the 180-day period commencing upon initiation 

of a proceeding pursuant to section 206, the Commission shall state the reason why it 

has failed to do so and shall state its best estimate as to when it reasonably expects to 

make such a decision. Based on our review of the record, we expect that, if this case 

does not settle, the presiding judge should be able to render a decision within 12 

months of the commencement of hearing procedures, or, if the case were to go to 

hearing, immediately, by February 28, 2014. Thus, we estimate that, if the case were 

to go to hearing immediately, we would be able to issue our decision within 

approximately nine months of the filing of briefs on and opposing exceptions, or by 

January 31, 2015. 

25. While we are setting these matters for a trial-type evidentiary hearing, we 

encourage the parties to make every effort to settle their disputes before hearing 

procedures are commenced. To aid the parties in their settlement efforts, we will hold 

hearing in abeyance and direct that a settlement judge be appointed, pursuant to Rule 

34 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, § 1285, 119 Stat. 594, 

980-81 (2005). 

35 See, e.g., Seminole Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 65 FERC 

¶ 61,413, at 63,139 (1993); Canal Elec. Co., 46 FERC ¶ 61,153, at 61,539, reh’g 

denied, 47 FERC ¶ 61,275 (1989). 
Docket Nos. ER13-553-000 and EL13-46-000 - 11 -

603 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.36 If the parties desire, they 

may, by mutual agreement, request a specific judge as the settlement judge in the 

proceeding; otherwise, the Chief Judge will select a judge for this purpose.37

26. The settlement judge shall report to the Chief Judge and the Commission 

within thirty (30) days of the date of the appointment of the settlement judge, 

concerning the status of settlement discussions. Based on this report, the Chief Judge 

shall provide the parties with additional time to continue their settlement discussions 

or provide for commencement of a hearing by assigning the case to a presiding judge. 

27. LG&E/KU request a waiver of the requirement in section 35.13 of the 

Commission’s regulations38 to submit additional cost of service statements. The 

Commission will grant the requested waiver of the filing requirements under 

section 35.13 of the Commission’s regulations due to the transmission loss factor rate 

decrease. However, this finding does not preclude parties at the hearing from 

demonstrating the need for additional specific information to allow for a full 

evaluation of this proposal. 

The Commission orders: 

(A) LG&E/KU’s proposed tariff revisions are hereby accepted for filing to 

become effective March 1, 2013, as discussed in the body of this order. 

(B) LG&E/KU’s request for waiver of the cost of service filing requirements 

under 18 C.F.R. § 35.13 is hereby granted, as discussed in the body of this order. 

(C) Pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction 

conferred upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by section 402(a) of the 

Department of Energy Organization Act and by the Federal Power Act, particularly 

sections 205 and 206 thereof, and pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure and the regulations under the Federal Power Act (18 C.F.R., Chapter I), a 

public hearing shall be held concerning LG&E/KU’s proposed tariff revisions. 

 36 18 C.F.R. § 385.603 (2012). 

37 If the parties decide to request a specific judge, they must make their joint 

request to the Chief Judge by telephone at (202) 502-8500 within five days of the date 

of this order. The Commission’s website contains a list of Commission judges and a 

summary of their background and experience (http://www.ferc.gov/legal/adr/availjudge.asp). 

38 18 C.F.R. § 35.13 (2012). 
Docket Nos. ER13-553-000 and EL13-46-000 - 12 -

However, the hearing shall be held in abeyance to provide time for settlement judge 

procedures, as discussed in Paragraphs (D) and (E) below. 

(D) Pursuant to Rule 603 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 385.603 (2012), the Chief Administrative Law Judge is hereby 

directed to appoint a settlement judge in this proceeding within fifteen (15) days of 

the date of this order. Such settlement judge shall have all powers and duties 

enumerated in Rule 603 and shall convene a settlement conference as soon as 

practicable after the Chief Judge designates the settlement judge. If the parties decide 

to request a specific judge, they must make their request to the Chief Judge within 

five (5) days of the date of this order. 

(E) Within thirty (30) days of the appointment of the settlement judge, the 

settlement judge shall file a report with the Commission and the Chief Judge on the 

status of the settlement discussions. Based on this report, the Chief Judge shall 

provide the parties with additional time to continue their settlement discussions, if 

appropriate, or assign this case to a presiding judge for a trial-type evidentiary 

hearing, if appropriate. If settlement discussions continue, the settlement judge shall 

file a report at least every sixty (60) days thereafter, informing the Commission and 

the Chief Judge of the parties’ progress toward settlement. 

(F) If settlement judge procedures fail and a trial-type evidentiary hearing is 

to be held, a presiding judge, to be designated by the Chief Judge, shall, within 

fifteen (15) days of the date of the presiding judge’s designation, convene a 

prehearing conference in this proceeding in a hearing room of the Commission, 888 

First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426. Such a conference shall be held for the 

purpose of establishing a procedural schedule. The presiding judge is authorized to 

establish procedural dates and to rule on all motions (except motions to dismiss) as 

provided in the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. 

(G) The Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal Register a notice of 

the Commission’s initiation of section 206 proceedings in Docket No. EL13-46-000. 

(H) The refund effective date established pursuant to section 206(b) of the 

Federal Power Act will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice 

discussed in Ordering Paragraph (G) above. 

 

By the Commission. 

( S E A L ) 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.