Opinion ID: 186472
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prior Proceedings in the Present Case

Text: 6 In 1993, Florida Power filed an extensive and comprehensive rate filing designed to overhaul [Florida Power's] existing tariff structure. Fla. Power & Light Co., 64 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,361, at 63,480 (Sept. 24, 1993). This rate filing marked the beginning of the Rate Case, a FERC proceeding that is docketed separately from the Complaint Case. Numerous parties, including FMPA (as a member of Florida Cities) intervened in the Rate Case. The Commission accepted and suspended Florida Power's rate filing and set most issues for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who subsequently issued a lengthy initial decision on December 13, 1995. See Fla. Power & Light Co., 73 F.E.R.C. ¶ 63,018 (Dec. 13, 1995). 7 On April 17, 2000, Florida Power filed a settlement agreement that proposed to resolve issues pertaining to its cost-of-service, with the exception of three FMPA Reserved Issues. The settlement was approved in Florida Power & Light Co., 92 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,241 (Sept. 18, 2000). One of the reserved issues was treatment of behind-the-meter generation and associated load. Fla. Power & Light Co., Settlement Agreement at 6, reprinted in Joint Appendix (J.A.) 55, 57. On June 30, 2003, FMPA filed a motion requesting that FERC direct it and Florida Power to file further pleadings on the reserved issues. 8 The challenged portions of the decisions under review relate to the Commission's disposition of the behind-the-meter generation and associated load reserved issue. The Commission declined to consider the issue on the ground that FMPA had raised its present concerns in the Order Nos. 888 and 888-A proceedings and the issue of load ratio pricing for network service had been resolved by FERC in those orders. See Fla. Power & Light Co., 105 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,287, at 62,409-10 (Dec. 16, 2003). 9 FMPA accept[ed] that network transmission pricing allocations... should be based upon ... customers' full load, but sought rehearing on a very discrete aspect of the load ratio pricing issue — i.e., whether FMPA should be charged by [Florida Power] for network transmission integration service to serve load where [Florida Power] cannot provide the service because of physical transmission limitations. FMPA Req. for Reh'g at 4, reprinted in J.A. 262, 265 (emphasis omitted). FMPA's principal argument was that it cannot be charged for service that Florida Power cannot provide because of physical transmission limitations. FMPA contended that such charges would be inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2000), and the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 824d-824e (2000). To highlight its concerns, FMPA cited its member city, Key West, which sits approximately 120 miles from Florida Power's interconnection point. The intervening transmission system that connects Key West to Florida Power does not have the physical capacity to serve Key West's full peak load. According to FMPA, it is therefore physically impossible for Florida Power to provide network service for the entirety of that load. See Req. for Reh'g at 5-7, J.A. 266-68. 10 The Commission denied the request for rehearing, stating: 11 We disagree with FMPA's premise that the transmission pricing guidance contained in Order Nos. 888 and 888-A is only generic in nature and did not address the application of load ratio pricing to the circumstances raised here by FMPA; Order No. 888-A clearly addressed the circumstances cited by FMPA and states that the bottom line is that all potential transmission customers, including those with generation behind the meter, must choose between network integration transmission service or point-to-point transmission service. Each of these services has its own advantages and risks. 12 Fla. Power & Light Co., 106 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,204, at 61,696-97 (Mar. 3, 2004) (quoting Order No. 888-A, 62 Fed.Reg. at 12,323). 13 Notwithstanding FERC's decision suggesting otherwise, it is undisputed here that Order No. 888-A did not address whether physical impossibility warrants an exception to the general rule against permitting partial load ratio pricing for network customers. FMPA petitions this court for review of that discrete issue.