Opinion ID: 553338
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Complaints Underlying this Appeal

Text: 13 Prior to our decision in MTA, but in response to the Commission's order, the Vermont Legislature on April 23, 1985 enacted legislation aimed at satisfying the Commission's newly articulated public body definition. See Vt.Stat.Ann. tit. 30, Sec. 212a. That legislation authorized VDPS to distribute and sell at retail electric power purchased from the Niagara and St. Lawrence River power projects. To accomplish this objective, the legislation authorized VDPS to enter into leasing agreements with private utility companies whereby VDPS would lease facilities from these entities and they in turn would provide VDPS with the services necessary to distribute Niagara preference power. Pursuant to this authorization, VDPS entered into a number of agreements with privately owned utilities aimed at accomplishing the sale and distribution of Niagara preference power directly to retail customers. 14 Similarly, in the early 1980s, a number of New York municipalities, seeking to reduce electricity rates for their citizens, formed municipal distribution agencies (MDAs). Pursuant to the authority conferred upon them by state and local law, the MDAs entered into contractual agreements whereby they leased electric distribution facilities from private IOUs. Through this type of leasing arrangement, the MDAs, like VDPS, sought to satisfy the Commission's public body definition. 15 On July 1, 1985, PASNY began to sell Niagara preference power to a number of New York MDAs. These allocations had the effect of reducing the amount of preference power available to other New York preference customers such as the members of the MEUA. On February 14, 1986, MEUA filed a complaint against PASNY with FERC. MEUA charged that the lease and operating agreements (LOAs) entered into by the New York MDAs with private utility companies did not qualify the MDAs as public bodies as defined by the Commission and this Court and that PASNY's decision to allocate preference power to the MDAs, therefore, violated the terms of its license and the NRA. Subsequently, on March 13, 1986, CMEEC and MMWEC filed similar complaints challenging PASNY's decision to allocate preference power to VDPS. The Commission consolidated the two complaints and ordered an evidentiary hearing before an ALJ.