Pu66ic Service Commission
O f W e s t Virginia
201 Brooks Street, P. 0. Box 812
Charleston, West Virginia 25323
Phone:
FAX:
I
~
(304)
(304)
340-0300
340-0325
December 5, 20 12
Gary A. Jack, Esq.
Senior Corporate Counsel
Monongahela Power Company
5001 NASA Boulevard
Fairmont, WV 26554
RE:
Case No. 12-1508-E-P
Monongahela Power Company
Dear Mr. Jack:
Pursuant to Rule 2 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, w e are
enclosing a copy of the Staff memorandum in this matter. If you wish to respond to the enclosed
Staff memorandum, you may do so in writing, within ten days, unless directed otherwise, of this
date,
Your failure to respond in writing to the utility’s answer, Staff’s recommendations, or
other documents may result in a decision in your case based on your original filing and the other
documents in the case file, without further hearing or notice.
If you have provided an email address you will automatically receive notifications as
documents are filed in this proceeding. The email notifications allow recipients to view a
document within an hour from the time the filing is processed. If you have not provided your
email address, please send an email to caseinfo@,psc.state.wv.usand state the case number in the
email subject field.
SSijn
Enclosure: Memo
/
Executive Secretaiy Division
INITIAL JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO:
SA lDRA SQUIRE
Executive Secretary
DATE: Decemuer 5, 012
FROM:
JOHN AUVILLE
Staff Attorney
RE:
CASE NO. 12-1508-E-P
MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY
cr!
q
--
On October 3 1, 2012, Monongahela Power Company (Mon Power) filed a petition
for Commission certification of the Morgantown Energy Associates (MEA) facility as a
“Qualified Energy Resource” as defined by the Commission’s Rules Governing
Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard or Portfolio Standard Rules, so
Mon Power can start generating “Alternative and Renewable Energy Resource Credits”
or “Credits.” Mon Power also argues that the MEA facility is a renewable energy
resource as define in Rule 2.22.1 as recycled energy. Mon Power makes this request
based upon the Commission’s Order dated November 11, 201 1, in Case No. 11-0249-EP, where the Commission stated Mon Power owned the credits generated by the MEA
facility and also authorized Mon Power to seek certification of the facility if MEA
refused to seek certification on its own. Mon Power therefore requests the Commission
enter an Order qualifying the MEA facility as a Qualified Energy Resource facility
entitled to generate credits as both an alternative energy resource and a renewable energy
resource.
On November 28, 2012, the Commission received a letter from the law firm of
Betts Hardy & Rogers, PLLC, counsel for MEA. The letter was filed to remind the
Commission of certain aspects of this case the Mon Power petition failed to mention.
Specifically, the letter reminded the Commission that the issue of ownership of the
credits generated by the MEA facility is currently in litigation. MEA argues that the
FERC has found certain aspects of the Commission’s November 11, 201 1 Order to be in
violation of both the Federal Law as well as FERC’s implementing regulations. FERC
also found that Mon Power did pay for the credits. FERC’s Order Denying
Reconsideration is currently before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia for enforcement. The letter asserts the Commission should not take any
action in this case that would contravene FERC’s Order Denying Reconsideration before
the Southern District Court of West Virginia resolves the enforcement action.
Staff has started its review of this petition and could make a recommendation on
the certification of the facility very soon. Staff, however, is uncertain how best to
proceed given the fact the ownership of these credits is still in litigation. If MEA
ultimately prevails, this petition would be meaningless and could further complicate an
Re: Case No. 12-1508-E-P
Date: December 5,20 12
Page 2
already complicated issue. If the Commission’s Order is upheld and the Commission
waits to act until after resolution by the Federal District Court, Mon Power would lose
out on the opportunity to generate valuable credits.
This case should be retained by the Commission.
cws
(-Ids
H:\jauville\Word\l2 15O8monpower\initialmemo.doc