Opinion ID: 402460
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interconnection

Text: 68 An interconnection is a physical connection that permits electricity to flow from one entity to another. The interconnections at issue here are not the usual ones by which a customer takes power from a utility but rather those which permit a cogenerator to transmit electricity to a utility. Petitioners argue that one of the rules promulgated by FERC is inconsistent with the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended and added to in relevant part by PURPA. We agree. 69 We turn first to the statutes. FPA section 210(c) 48 provides that the Commission may issue an interconnection order with respect to a qualifying cogenerator only if the interconnection is in the public interest; would encourage overall conservation of energy or capital, optimize the efficiency of the use of facilities and resources, or improve a utility system's reliability; and meets the requirements of FPA section 212 49 that, inter alia, the interconnection is not likely to result in a reasonably ascertainable uncompensated economic loss for any utility or cogenerator, will not place an undue burden on any party, will not unreasonably impair the reliability of the utility, and will not impair the utility's ability to render adequate service to its customers. FPA section 210(b) 50 provides that the Commission is to give appropriate notice and afford an evidentiary hearing before issuing any such order, and FPA section 212 contains certain specific financial and procedural protections for the party ordered to interconnect (for these purposes, the utility). Section 210(a)(1) of the FPA, as added to and amended by PURPA, states: 70 Upon application of any electric utility, Federal power marketing agency, qualifying cogenerator, or qualifying small power producer, the Commission may issue an order requiring- 71 (A) the physical connection of any cogeneration facility, any small power production facility, or the transmission facilities of any electric utility, with the facilities of any such applicant .... 51 72 Finally, and most significantly, section 210(e)(3) of PURPA states: 73 No qualifying small power production facility or qualifying cogeneration facility may be exempted under this subsection from- 74 .... 75 (B) the provisions of section 210, 211, or 212 of the Federal Power Act ... or the necessary authorities for the enforcement of any such provision of the Federal Power Act .... 52 76 Against this statutory background, FERC promulgated rule 292.303(c)(1), which reads: 77 292.303 Electric utility obligations under this subpart. 78 .... 79 (c) Obligation to interconnect. 80 (1) ... (A)ny electric utility shall make such interconnections with any qualifying facility as may be necessary to accomplish purchases or sales under this subpart. 53 81 Petitioners assert, and we find, that this rule is inconsistent with the statutes. 82 By requiring any utility to make interconnections with any cogenerator FERC designates, the Commission would in effect exempt qualifying cogenerators from the other procedural and substantive requirements discussed above in FPA sections 210 and 212, and deprive utilities of the safeguards afforded by those provisions. Section 210(e)(3) of PURPA makes clear that FERC may not do this: No ... qualifying cogeneration facility may be exempted ... from the provisions of section 210, 211, or 212 of the Federal Power Act ... or the necessary authorities for enforcement of any such provision under the Federal Power Act .... 54 83 FERC argues that compliance with the literal meaning of the statutory sections would impose an undue burden upon cogenerators. However, the Commission need not impose substantial administrative burdens on those facilities, but rather can adopt streamlined procedures. If the Commission believes that even streamlined procedures are too burdensome, the necessary amendment must come from Congress. FERC's argument extolling the wisdom and popularity of its interpretation is necessarily unavailing when Congress has explicitly chosen a policy to the contrary. As much can be said of the Commission's arguments that the procedures of FPA sections 210 and 212 and PURPA, respectively, would add nothing to the utilities' safeguards built into the Commission's rule on interconnection. The Commission cannot justify its transgression of the statute by saying that it is not convinced that it makes any difference. 84 The Commission also offers the following argument: 85 ... (S)ection 212(e) of the Federal Power Act states that no provision of the interconnection requirements of the Federal Power Act shall be treated (1) as requiring any person to utilize the authority of such section 210 or 212 (of the Federal Power Act) in lieu of any authority of law, or (2) as limiting, impairing, or otherwise affecting any other authority of the Commission under any provision of law (emphasis supplied). As this language plainly shows, the interconnection provisions of the Federal Power Act do not provide the exclusive remedy, where the requirements of Section 210 of PURPA-i.e., any other provisions of law-are satisfied. 55 86 We find this argument to be wholly unconvincing. FERC contends that the authority it has to encourage cogeneration-one tool for which, it argues, is to grant authority for cogenerators to interconnect with utilities without meeting the other requirements of sections 210 and 212 of the Federal Power Act-cannot be attenuated by other statutory provisions. That is, FERC argues that it has been given specific authority to make the interconnection rule and that other statutory provisions cannot be read as limiting that authority. This assumes the conclusion. It is true that section 212(e) of the FPA was intended to keep specific grants of authority from being vitiated by the general limitations on authority in sections 210 and 212. However, in the case at hand, there is no specific grant of authority involved. Instead, we have a relatively specific limitation on authority in PURPA section 210(e)(3) which must control over the relatively general grant of authority in FPA section 212(e). The general directive of section 212(e) does not give the Commission a mandate to consign detailed provisions of PURPA itself to the wastebasket as meaningless surplusage. It is well established that 87 (h)owever inclusive may be the general language of a statute, it will not be held to apply to a matter specifically dealt with in another part of the same enactment.... Specific terms prevail over the general in the same or another statute which might otherwise be controlling. 56 88 Finally, FERC argues that rule 292.303(c)(1) is consistent with PURPA section 210(e)(3) if the latter is interpreted as protecting cogenerators who are targets of other parties seeking interconnection, and not extended to situations where the cogenerator is an applicant for an interconnection itself. While an interesting and not inherently implausible suggestion, the Commission points to no evidence in the legislative history or the statute itself to justify this interpretation, which is both counterintuitive and inconsistent with the statute's explicit provisions. Nor were we able to find such evidence. Accordingly, we reject the interpretation. The Commission's interconnection rule is hereby vacated.