[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14643-14646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04055]



[[Page 14643]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. FA21-5-000]


Commonwealth Edison Company; Order Establishing Paper Hearing 
Procedures and Establishing Trial-Type Hearing and Settlement Judge 
Procedures

    1. On August 28, 2023, pursuant to Sec.  41.2 of the Commission's 
regulations,\1\ Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) filed a request for 
Commission review of certain findings and recommendations in the July 
27, 2023 order \2\ and accompanying audit report \3\ issued in this 
docket by the Director of the Office of Enforcement (Enforcement) under 
authority delegated to the Director by Sec.  375.311 of the Commission 
regulations.\4\ In accordance with Sec.  41.2 of the Commission's 
regulations,\5\ ComEd notified the Commission that it requested review 
of two contested issues by means of a shortened paper hearing procedure 
and one contested issue by means of a trial-type hearing. ComEd also 
requested settlement judge procedures concerning the one contested 
issue for which it requested a trial-type hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 41.2 (2022).
    \2\ Commonwealth Edison Co., Docket No. FA21-5-000 (July 27, 
2023) (delegated order) (hereafter, Delegated Order).
    \3\ Audit of Commonwealth Edison Company's compliance with its 
approved terms, rates, and conditions of its wholesale transmission 
formula rate; accounting requirements of the Uniform System of 
Accounts Prescribed for Public Utilities and Licensees under 18 CFR 
part 101; reporting requirements of the FERC Form No. 1, Annual 
Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and Others, under 18 
CFR 141.1; and, requirements in Preservation of Records of Public 
Utilities and Licensees under 18 CFR part 125, Commission Office of 
Enforcement Division of Audits and Accounting (July 27, 2023) (Audit 
Report).
    \4\ 18 CFR 375.311 (2022).
    \5\ 18 CFR 41.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. In this order, pursuant to Sec.  41.3 of the Commission's 
regulations,\6\ we direct the commencement of a paper hearing and 
establish paper hearing procedures for two contested issues, as 
requested. Pursuant to Sec.  41.7 of the Commission's regulations,\7\ 
we direct the commencement of a trial-type hearing and establish trial-
type hearing procedures for one contested issue, as requested. Pursuant 
to Sec.  385.601 of the Commission's regulations,\8\ we also establish 
settlement judge procedures for the one contested issue set for trial-
type hearing, as requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 18 CFR 41.3 (2022).
    \7\ 18 CFR 41.7 (2022).
    \8\ 18 CFR 385.601 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Audit Report

    3. The Audit Report summarizes the review by Enforcement's Division 
of Audits and Accounting (DAA), first announced in this docket on April 
21, 2021, of ComEd's compliance with: (1) the approved terms, rates, 
and conditions of its transmission formula rate mechanism as provided 
in Attachment H-13A of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Open Access 
Transmission Tariff; (2) the accounting requirements of the Uniform 
System of Accounts Prescribed for Public Utilities and Licensees under 
18 CFR part 101 (2022) ; (3) the reporting requirements of the FERC 
Form No. 1, Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and 
Others, under 18 CFR 141.1 (2022); and (4) the requirements in 
Preservation of Records of Public Utilities and Licensees under 18 CFR 
part 125 (2022).\9\ The Audit Report contained 11 findings and 61 
recommendations that require ComEd to take corrective action. The audit 
covered the period January 1, 2017 through August 31, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Delegated Order at P 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. As described in the Delegated Order accompanying the Audit 
Report, ComEd notified DAA on June 29, 2023 that ComEd disagreed with 
and expected to contest DAA's findings and recommendations pertaining 
to: (1) the asset retirement obligations (ARO) to the extent that the 
ARO finding and recommendations are not held in abeyance; (2) the 
accounting misclassifications related to internal labor costs for 
remediation at manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites; and (3) the 
allocation of overhead costs to construction work in progress 
(CWIP).\10\ In the Delegated Order, the Director of Enforcement denied 
the requested abeyance for the ARO finding and recommendations.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. P 3.
    \11\ Id.; see also Audit Report, attach. A, ComEd Responses to 
Findings and Recommendations, at p.3 (requesting that Audit Staff 
Finding 3 and related recommendations related to ARO be held in 
abeyance pending ComEd submitting, and the Commission acting on, a 
single-issue filing under section 205 of the Federal Power Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Delegated Order stated that it served as notice, pursuant to 
part 41 of the Commission's regulations,\12\ that ComEd may notify the 
Commission in writing, within 30 days of the issuance of the Delegated 
Order, as to whether it requests Commission review of the contested 
issues by a shortened paper hearing procedure or a trial-type hearing 
if ComEd contends that there are material facts in dispute that require 
cross-examination.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 18 CFR part 41 (2022).
    \13\ Delegated Order at P 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. As described below, on August 28, 2023, ComEd timely filed a 
response to the Delegated Order. On September 8, 2023, Enforcement 
staff filed an answer to ComEd's response. On September 15, 2023, ComEd 
filed an answer to Enforcement staff's answer.

II. ComEd Response and Election of Process

    7. In its response to the Delegated Order, ComEd elected Commission 
review by means of the shortened paper hearing procedures for two 
issues: (1) the accounting treatment of AROs (Audit Report Issue 3 and 
Recommendations 8-12); and (2) the accounting treatment of MGP site 
remediation costs (Audit Report Issue 7 and Recommendations 34-43).\14\ 
ComEd states that, for these two issues, it elected shortened paper 
hearing procedures because there are no material facts in dispute. 
ComEd also elected Commission review by means of a trial-type hearing 
for one issue, the allocation of overhead costs to CWIP (Audit Report 
Issue 4 and Recommendations 12-21). ComEd states that, for this issue, 
it elected Commission review by a trial-type hearing because there are 
material facts in dispute that require cross-examination.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ComEd Response at 1-2. ComEd states that, notwithstanding 
its challenge of the ARO issue, it agrees to revise its treatment of 
Account 108 ARO Depreciation Removals as recommended in the Audit 
Report. Id. at 1 n.2. Further, ComEd clarifies that it does not 
challenge the findings in Audit Report Issue 7 related to items 
other than MGP site remediation costs and it will take the requested 
corrective actions as to those other items. Id. at 1 n.3.
    \15\ Id. at 1 (citing 18 CFR 41.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. First, ComEd asserts that the Audit Report raises disputed 
issues of material fact concerning the allocation of overhead costs to 
CWIP because the Audit Report contends that ComEd's ``processes and 
procedures for allocating labor and related overhead costs to 
construction were not consistent with Commission accounting 
regulations,'' and ``may have led to overstated construction costs.'' 
\16\ ComEd asserts that these Enforcement staff findings raise several 
disputed issues of material fact, including: (1) What were ComEd's 
processes and procedures, and were they appropriately designed and 
conducted in light of the Commission's accounting rules and applicable 
precedent? (2) Did those processes and procedures properly determine 
the amounts of such overheads reasonably

[[Page 14644]]

applicable to construction? and (3) Do those processes and procedures 
comply with the relevant requirements?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. at 8 (quoting Audit Report at 48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Second, ComEd asserts that there also are disputed issues of 
material fact concerning the data on which the Audit Report relies. 
ComEd explains that the Audit Report contends that its analysis was 
based on ``interviews of a randomized sample of ComEd's employees whose 
labor costs were allocated to construction projects during the audit 
period and a review of a sample of timesheets associated with the 
employees.'' \17\ ComEd contends that this statement raises disputed 
issues of material fact, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 8-9 (quoting Audit Report at 26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Who was interviewed, how were they selected, and what were they 
asked?
    (2) What timesheets were reviewed and what did they reveal? and (3) 
Did the material reviewed support or contradict the Audit Report's 
conclusions?
    10. Third, ComEd asserts that the Audit Report's recommendation to 
remedy this issue--to retain an independent third-party entity to 
conduct a representative labor-time study for allocation of overhead 
costs incurred in 2023--raises disputed issues of material fact.\18\ 
ComEd contends that the disputed issues include: (1) How would the new 
study be implemented in practice? (2) Would that approach be 
appropriately designed and conducted in light of the Commission's 
accounting rules and applicable precedent? (3) Would that approach 
properly determine the amounts of such overheads reasonably applicable 
to construction? and (4) Would that approach comply with the relevant 
requirements?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id. at 9-10 (citing Audit Report at 48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Finally, ComEd asserts that the Audit Report's remedy--to 
remediate the allocation of overhead costs to accounts dating back to 
2017--raises disputed issues of material fact.\19\ ComEd contends that 
the disputed issues include: (1) Were ComEd's overheads allocations 
going back to 2017 reasonable? (2) Did the work done by the relevant 
personnel change from year to year? (3) If so, how could one 
appropriately restate the allocations for past years? (4) Is the 
``estimate'' proposed by the Audit Report a reasonable and non-
arbitrary way of reallocating overheads in years remote from the year 
in which the study was conducted? and (5) Would restating amounts for 
such prior years allow ComEd to properly recover its prudently incurred 
and reasonable costs? With respect to the fourth question, ComEd 
asserts that there are strong reasons to doubt that a labor-time study 
performed in 2023 will be a more accurate method of allocating overhead 
labor costs than the approach that ComEd used in the past to allocate 
overhead labor costs that were incurred several years earlier.\20\ 
ComEd states, for example, that in prior years, many ComEd employees 
were working on the Grand Prairie Gateway 345kV transmission project. 
ComEd asserts that, because that project was completed in 2017, a 
labor-time study done in 2023 will not capture the considerable time 
that ComEd employees spent on that project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 10 (citing Audit Report at 48-49).
    \20\ Id. at 10 n.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. ComEd suggests that it could be beneficial to employ a 
settlement judge procedure prior to the trial-type hearing with the 
hope that a negotiated resolution of the overhead costs issue might be 
achievable.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Enforcement Staff Answer

    13. Enforcement staff filed an answer asserting that ComEd's 
response fails to identify any disputed issue of material fact and, if 
such an issue had been identified, fails to meet the additional 
requirement of showing why a trial-type hearing with cross-examination 
of witnesses would be necessary to resolve the issue, rather than a 
paper hearing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Enforcement Staff Answer at 1-3 (arguing that ComEd has the 
additional burden to show why live witness testimony and testing the 
credibility of witnesses on the stand is required to resolve the 
factual dispute).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Enforcement staff contends that there are no disputed issues of 
material fact because Enforcement staff and ComEd agree as to what 
ComEd did and did not do to allocate overhead costs.\23\ Enforcement 
staff explains that ComEd's overhead costs were accumulated into 
overhead pools and were allocated between construction and operating 
and maintenance projects using an allocation methodology. Enforcement 
staff states that ComEd categorized the overhead costs into two 
indirect cost overhead pools--Administrative and General (A&G) and 
General and Administrative (G&A). Enforcement staff states that the A&G 
overhead pool was used to accumulate costs such as information 
technology, legal, fixed assets, human resources, real estate, and 
Exelon \24\ Business Service Company costs. Enforcement staff states 
that, to allocate A&G overhead pool costs, ComEd first reviewed each 
cost within its operating and maintenance budget to determine whether 
the cost was eligible for capitalization. Enforcement staff states that 
ComEd then allocated the eligible A&G overhead cost based on the ratio 
of capitalized labor cost over total labor cost. Enforcement staff 
states that the G&A overhead pool was used to accumulate overhead costs 
from ComEd departments that provided back-office support to capital-
intensive departments.\25\ Enforcement staff states that, to allocate 
G&A overhead pool costs to construction, ComEd applied the weighted 
average overhead capitalization rate of the capital-intensive 
departments to the costs accumulated in the G&A overhead pool. 
Enforcement staff also asserts that the facts are clear as to what 
ComEd did not do to allocate its overhead costs: specifically, it did 
not base its allocation on actual time (through timecard 
distributions), or on a study of actual employee time spent on work 
relating to construction projects, as required by the Commission's 
accounting regulation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id. at 4.
    \24\ Exelon Corporation (Exelon) is the parent company of ComEd.
    \25\ Enforcement Staff Answer at 5.
    \26\ Id. at 6; Audit Report at 45 (citing 18 CFR part 101, 
General Instruction No. 9, Distribution of Pay and Expenses of 
Employees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Enforcement staff further contends that ComEd's purported 
questions are general and abstract, with no identification of a factual 
issue that ComEd contends is disputed, no attempt to show that any such 
disputed fact is ``material'' to a matter presently before the 
Commission to be decided, and no explanation of why such an issue 
requires live witness testimony as opposed to resolution through a 
paper hearing.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Enforcement Staff Answer at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Enforcement staff asserts that, given there are no material 
issues of fact to resolve regarding ComEd's allocation of overhead 
costs, the Commission is left to resolve only a question of law: Did 
ComEd's allocation of overhead costs comply with the Commission's 
accounting regulations? Enforcement staff asserts that it does not 
believe that ComEd complied with the Commission's regulations because 
it did not allocate overhead costs based on actual time or a study of 
actual employee time.\28\ Enforcement staff therefore asserts that the 
Commission should deny ComEd's request for a trial-type hearing and set 
the question of law--the interpretation of the Commission's accounting 
regulations for overhead construction costs--for paper hearing.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id. at 6-7.
    \29\ Id. at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. With respect to ComEd's request that the Commission employ 
settlement

[[Page 14645]]

judge procedures, Enforcement staff notes that it has engaged in 
lengthy discussions with ComEd over a nine-month period to attempt to 
resolve all issues in this audit proceeding without success.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id. at 8 n.14 (citing ComEd Response at 11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. ComEd Answer

    ComEd asserts that, under the Commission's regulations, the issue 
is whether ComEd's method of allocating overhead construction costs 
``reasonably appli[ed]'' those costs to ``particular jobs or units,'' 
so that ``each job or unit shall bear its equitable proportion of such 
costs.'' \31\ ComEd states that, to apply this guidance and determine 
which costs are properly recorded as overhead construction costs, ComEd 
conducts an annual study of personnel in various back-office 
departments and assigns their costs based on the results of that 
study.\32\ In response to Enforcement staff's assertion that there is 
agreement between Enforcement staff and ComEd about ComEd's cost 
allocation methodology, ComEd responds that it is unsure that there is 
any such agreement, but even if there was agreement, the key question 
is not what method ComEd used, but whether ComEd's method was 
reasonable, which is inherently a factual one.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ ComEd Answer at 2-3 (quoting 18 CFR part 101, Electric 
Plant Instruction No. 4(A), Overhead Construction Costs).
    \32\ Id. at 3-4.
    \33\ Id. at 2, 4, 5 (arguing that it is also a factual question 
whether a time study conducted in 2024 is a reasonable proxy for the 
allocation of costs spent up to eight years earlier).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. ComEd asserts that the Audit Report is premised on factual 
conclusions based on Enforcement staff's interviews.\34\ In particular, 
ComEd states that Enforcement staff's evaluation of the reasonableness 
of ComEd's method was based on ``interviews of a randomized sample of 
ComEd's employees whose labor costs were allocated to construction 
projects during the audit period and a review of a sample of timesheets 
associated with the employees.'' \35\ ComEd states that the Audit 
Report does not disclose anything about the substance of those 
interviews or the methods used to analyze the results, which makes it 
impossible for either ComEd or the Commission to assess the Audit 
Report's findings and recommendations on overhead construction 
costs.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id. at 4.
    \35\ Id. (quoting Audit Report at 26).
    \36\ Id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. ComEd states that it continues to think that settlement judge 
procedures could be beneficial because a mediator can sometimes help 
adverse parties find a resolution.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion

A. Procedural Matters

    20. Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.213(a)(2) (2022), prohibits an answer to an 
answer unless otherwise ordered by the decisional authority. We accept 
ComEd's answer \38\ because it has provided information that assisted 
us in our decision-making process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ We note that Enforcement staff's answer to ComEd's response 
was appropriately filed pursuant to Rule 213(a)(3) of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.213(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Substantive Matters

    21. In Order No. 675, the Commission amended its Part 41 
regulations to expand due process by allowing an audited person who 
disputes findings or proposed remedies contained in an audit report to 
elect a shortened paper hearing procedure or a trial-type hearing to 
challenge disputed audit matters.\39\ The Commission stated that it 
would honor the audited person's timely election unless a trial-type 
hearing is chosen and there are, in the Commission's judgment, no 
disputed issues of material fact that require a trial-type hearing.\40\ 
In response to ComEd's timely election, we establish a shortened paper 
hearing procedure for two contested issues, and we establish a trial-
type hearing and settlement judge procedures for one contested issue, 
as set forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Procs. for Disposition of Contested Audit Matters, Order 
No. 675, 114 FERC ] 61,178, at P 37, order on reh'g & clarification, 
Order No. 675-A, 115 FERC ] 61,189 (2006).
    \40\ Id.; see also 18 CFR 41.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Shortened Paper Hearing Procedure
    22. Pursuant to Sec.  41.3 of the Commission's regulations,\41\ we 
direct the commencement of a paper hearing and establish paper hearing 
procedures concerning two contested issues, as requested by ComEd: (1) 
the accounting treatment of AROs (Issue 3 in the Audit Report and 
Recommendations 8-12); and (2) the accounting treatment of MGP site 
remediation costs (Issue 7 in the Audit Report and Recommendations 34-
43).\42\ The scope of the paper hearing is limited to these challenged 
findings and recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 18 CFR 41.3.
    \42\ Consistent with ComEd's election, we do not set for hearing 
the findings in Issue 7 that relate to items other than MGP site 
remediation costs, as those findings are uncontested and ComEd has 
agreed to take the corrective actions directed by Enforcement staff. 
See ComEd Response at 1 n.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. In accordance with Sec.  41.3, ComEd and any other interested 
entity, including Enforcement staff, shall file, within 45 days of this 
order, an initial memorandum that addresses the relevant facts and 
applicable law that support the position or positions taken regarding 
the matters at issue.\43\ Reply memoranda may be filed by participants 
who filed initial memoranda. Reply memoranda must be filed within 20 
days of the due date for initial memoranda. Pursuant to Sec.  41.3, 
subpart T of part 385 of the Commission's regulations shall apply to 
all filings. Further, pursuant to Sec.  41.4, each entity's memorandum 
should set out the facts and arguments as prescribed for briefs in Rule 
706 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.\44\ Section 
41.5 also requires that the facts stated in the memorandum must be 
sworn to by persons having knowledge thereof, which latter fact must 
affirmatively appear in the affidavit.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ In Order No. 675, the Commission stated that it will use 
the same standard for permitting interested entities to file 
memoranda in the shortened paper hearing procedures as it uses to 
permit interventions in other proceedings. In addition, the 
Commission stated that an interested entity may include in its 
initial memorandum filed pursuant to the shortened paper hearing 
procedures a motion to intervene in the proceeding. Order No. 675, 
114 FERC ] 61,178 at P 11 (citing 18 CFR 385.214(b) (2022)); see 
FirstEnergy Corp., 185 FERC ] 61,099, at P 21 & n.61 (2023) (stating 
that interventions are permitted in a contested audit proceeding in 
which the audited person elects to contest one or more audit 
findings or remedies in a shortened paper hearing procedure).
    \44\ 18 CFR 41.4 (citing 18 CFR 385.706 (2022)).
    \45\ Id. Sec.  41.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to 
filing requirements, interventions, and service can be found at: 
https://www.ferc.gov/media/5339. For other information, call (866) 208-
3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
2. Trial-Type Hearing and Settlement Judge Procedures
    25. With respect to the contested issue concerning the allocation 
of overhead costs to CWIP (Issue 4 in the Audit Report and 
Recommendations 13-21), we find that ComEd has raised issues of 
material fact that cannot be resolved based on the record before us and 
that are more appropriately addressed in a trial-type hearing. 
Therefore, pursuant to Sec.  41.7 of the Commission's regulations,\46\ 
we direct the commencement of a trial-type hearing and establish trial-
type hearing procedures concerning the allocation of overhead costs to 
CWIP, as requested by

[[Page 14646]]

ComEd. The scope of the trial-type hearing is limited to these 
challenged findings and recommendations. Pursuant to Rule 601 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,\47\ we also establish 
settlement judge procedures for this contested issue, as requested by 
ComEd.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id. Sec.  41.7.
    \47\ Id. Sec.  385.601.
    \48\ ComEd Response at 11; ComEd Answer at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Any interested entity seeking to participate in this trial-type 
hearing shall file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure \49\ no later than 15 days 
after the date of publication of this order in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 18 CFR 385.214; see FirstEnergy Corp., 185 FERC ] 61,099 at 
P 21 & n.61 (stating that interventions are permitted in a contested 
audit proceeding in which the audited person elects to contest one 
or more audit findings or remedies in a trial-type hearing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. While we are setting the allocation of overhead costs to CWIP 
for a trial-type evidentiary hearing,\50\ we encourage efforts to reach 
settlement before hearing procedures commence. To aid settlement 
efforts, we will hold the trial-type hearing in abeyance and direct 
that a settlement judge be appointed, pursuant to Rule 603 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.\51\ If parties desire, 
they may, by mutual agreement, request a specific judge as the 
settlement judge in the proceeding. The Chief Judge, however, may not 
be able to designate the requested settlement judge based on workload 
requirements, which determine judges' availability.\52\ The settlement 
judge shall report to the Chief Judge and the Commission within 60 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 
assignment of the case to a presiding judge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Enforcement staff is a participant in the trial-type 
hearing and settlement judge procedures. See 18 CFR 385.102(b), (c) 
(2022).
    \51\ 18 CFR 385.603.
    \52\ 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 this order. The Commission's 
website contains a list of Commission judges available for 
settlement proceedings and a summary of their background and 
experience (https://www.ferc.gov/available-settlement-judges).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission orders:
    (A) A paper hearing and related procedures are hereby established 
concerning two contested issues, the accounting treatment of AROs and 
MGP site remediation costs, as set forth in the body of this order.
    (B) A trial-type hearing and related procedures, and settlement 
procedures are hereby established concerning one contested issue, the 
allocation of overhead costs to CWIP, as set forth in the body of this 
order.
    (C) Pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the 
jurisdiction conferred on the Commission by section 402(a) of the 
Department of Energy Organization Act and the Federal Power Act (FPA), 
particularly Sec.  205, 206 and 301 thereof, and pursuant to the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure and the regulations under 
the FPA (18 CFR chapter I), a public hearing shall be held concerning 
the allocation of overhead costs to CWIP, as discussed in the body of 
this order. However, the hearing will be held in abeyance to provide 
time for settlement judge procedures, as discussed in Ordering 
Paragraphs (D) and (E) below.
    (D) Pursuant to Rule 603 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.603, the Chief Judge is hereby directed to 
appoint a settlement judge in this proceeding within 45 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 parties decide to request a specific judge, they must make 
their request to the Chief Judge within five days of the date of this 
order.
    (E) Within 60 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 participants 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 60 days thereafter, informing the 
Commission and the Chief Judge of participants' 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 45 days of the date of the presiding 
judge's designation, convene a prehearing conference in these 
proceedings in a hearing room of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, or remotely (by telephone or electronically), as 
appropriate. Such a conference shall be held for the purpose of 
establishing a procedural schedule. The presiding judgeis 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.
    By the Commission. Commissioner Danly is not participating.

    Issued: Issued December 8, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-04055 Filed 2-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P