Opinion ID: 185384
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Nature of the Terminated Transactions

Text: 14 PCA asserts that the Commission misconceived the nature of the terminated transactions, that 17 of them were umbrella agreements or their functional equivalents. See Final Brief of Petitioner at 19-24. We have jurisdiction to consider only PCA's argument regarding 12 of the transactions because PCA was not a party to the proceedings involving the other five. 5 See supra section I.B. 15 One of the 12, Washington Water Power Company (WWPC), clearly did not terminate an umbrella agreement with PCA. WWPC's notices of termination stated that it was terminating transactions under the Western Systems Power Pool Agreement. See Joint Appendix at 358 & 657. While the Pool Agreement may constitute an umbrella agreement required to be on file, WWPC could not have terminated it merely by terminating individual transactions under it. The Pool Agreement has numerous parties in addition to WWPC and PCA, and as such is not subject to termination by a single party. As the Commission put it in Western Systems Power Pool, 55 F.E.R.C. p 61,495, at 62,716 (1991), the WSPP is an umbrella arrangement that will continue for at least ten years while members come and go over time. When one member leaves, the arrangement does not terminate. See generally Western Systems Power Pool, 55 F.E.R.C. p 61,099 (1991). 16 We will assume arguendo that the remaining 11 cancellations were of umbrella agreements. PCA still must establish that these umbrella agreements were required to be on file with the Commission. 18 C.F.R. § 35.15(a). If they were not required to be on file, they are not subject to the Commission's 60-day notice-of-termination requirement. PCA makes no attempt to prove this essential predicate. 17 As it turns out, the canceled agreements were not required to be on file, whether they were umbrella agreements or not. This is so because these 11 terminating counterparties were power marketers like PCA rather than traditional utilities. 6 The Commission, in its original order holding that notice of termination was not necessary, explained that for transactions involving power sales by power marketers, there are no umbrella service agreements on file and likewise the particular transaction terms were not on file. 84 F.E.R.C. p 61,199, at 61,986 & n.3. The Commission further explained in its order on rehearing that the filings by power marketers involved specific market-based power sales transactions that were neither on file with the Commission nor subject to any filed umbrella agreements, but were made pursuant to an umbrella tariff on file. 86 F.E.R.C. p 61,131, at 61,455. 18 Power marketers are not required to file umbrella agreements, so the notice-of-termination regulation in 18 C.F.R. § 35.15(a) does not apply to umbrella agreements they terminate. Power marketers instead file umbrella tariffs and quarterly reports summarizing past transactions. See 86 F.E.R.C. p 61,131, at 61,459 & n.36; see also Heartland Energy Servs., Inc., 68 F.E.R.C. p 61,223, at 62,065-66 (1994) (the requirement that [power] marketers file quarterly reports detailing the purchase and sale transactions undertaken in the prior quarter is necessary to ensure that contracts relating to rates and services are on file, as required by section 205(c) of the FPA); supra note 6. Traditional utilities, by contrast, are required to file umbrella agreements. See Southern Co. Servs., Inc., 75 F.E.R.C. p 61,130, at 61,439, 61,444-45 (1996) (revising filing requirements for short-term market-based rate transactions by non-power marketer public utilities and requiring filing of umbrella agreements and quarterly reports). Because PCA never established that the contracts at issue are required to be on file, it is irrelevant that PCA's power marketer counterparties might have canceled umbrella agreements or their functional equivalent. 19 We decline to address PCA's argument in its reply brief that the umbrella agreements were required to be on file because they were contained in quarterly reports that are required to be on file. See Final Reply Brief of Petitioner at 7-8. This argument was not raised in PCA's opening brief and is therefore waived. See Rollins Environmental Servs. (NJ) Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 937 F.2d 649, 652 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1991). The Commission's motion to strike the portions of PCA's reply brief that raise this argument is granted. Contrary to PCA's contention in its opposition to the Commission's motion to strike, the Commission's orders adequately apprised PCA of the need to raise in its opening brief the argument that the canceled transactions, whatever their nature, were required to be on file. See 84 F.E.R.C. p 61,199, at 61,986 (Commission order stating that traditional utilities file umbrella agreements but power marketers do not); 86 F.E.R.C. p 61,131, at 61,455 (rehearing order making the same distinction); id. at 61,459 (rehearing order stating that quarterly reports satisfy Federal Power Act filing requirement but are not rate schedules required to be on file under 18 C.F.R. § 35.15(a)).