Windpower Engineering & Development

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Most recent posts
    • News
    • Featured
  • Resources
    • Digital issues
    • Podcasts
    • Suppliers
    • Webinars
    • Events
  • Videos
  • 2025 Leadership
    • 2024 Winners
    • 2023 Winners
    • 2022 Winners
  • Magazine
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe

FERC clarifies requirements for simultaneous electric exchange transactions

By Paul Dvorak | April 3, 2012

This article comes from the law firm Troutman Sanders (troutman.com) and authors Jeffrey M. Jakubiak and Karen J. Kruse

In February 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission defined the scope of permissible locational exchanges of electric energy in response to Puget Sound Energy, Inc.’s 2010 petition for a declaratory order. In doing so, the Commission held that certain exchanges that occur at one or more locations on an affiliate’s transmission system require special authorization.

The Commission’s order, in short, defined what it considered to be simultaneous locational exchanges and stated that a public utility must seek prior Commission approval before engaging in any such transactions that involve the public utility’s or an affiliated transmission provider’s system. It noted, however, that it “will not impose this obligation upon simultaneous exchanges that are or have been effective prior to the date of this order’s issuance” and would also consider on a case-by-case basis any requests to permit the marketing function of a transmission provider to engage in such exchanges.

As regards what constitute simultaneous locational exchanges, the Commission expressed concern that Puget’s focus on transactions with the same deliperiod may unduly restrict the category of transactions at issue. Therefore, the Commission referred to “simultaneous exchanges” that involve overlapping delivery periods, and it defined such transactions as follows:

“Simultaneous exchanges occur when a pair of simultaneously arranged (i.e., part of the same negotiations) wholesale power transactions between the same counterparties in which party A sells an electricity product to party B at one location and party B sells a similar electricity product to party A at a different location have an overlapping delivery period. The simultaneous exchange is the overlapping portion ( in volume and delivery period) of these wholesale power transactions.”

The Commission found that this definition encompassed the locational exchanges as described by Puget, as well as additional transactions in which the deliperiods overlap but are not identical.

The Commission held that when the simultaneous exchange transaction involves the marketing function of a public utility transmission provider, the public utility must seek prior approval from the Commission if the transaction involves the public utility’s affiliated transmission provider’s system. The Commission clarified that “involvement of the transmission provider’s system” means that “one point of the simultaneous exchange is either within or on the border of the transmission provider’s system.” The Commission, however, granted Puget’s petition in part by finding that all other simultaneous exchange transactions do not require prior Commission approval (beyond the necessary authorization under section 205 of the Federal Power Act for the sale for resale of electric energy).

In explaining the limitations applied to simultaneous-exchange transactions involving the marketing function of a transmission provider on that transmission provider’s system, the Commission discussed its concern regarding simultaneous exchanges. In particular, the Commission believes that certain of these transactions: (1) may resemble transmission service because they involve a party placing power onto the power grid at one delivery point and then simultaneously receiving power at another delivery point; and (2) may appear to enable the marketing function to effectively provide service on its transmission provider’s system without the reservation of service on that system. Thus, the Commission stated that the marketing function of a transmission provider could utilize the complexity of simultaneous exchanges to effectively perform transmission functions where the transactions involve the transmission provider’s system, which would circumvent the Commission’s regulations involving open access transmission service.

Troutman Sanders LLC


Filed Under: News, Policy

 

About The Author

Paul Dvorak

Related Articles Read More >

Richardson Electronics to deliver pitch energy modules to TransAlta wind fleets
Equinor halts work on Empire Wind offshore project after federal government order
ARESCA wants input on offshore wind standards
US wind market has worst install year since 2013

Podcasts

Wind Spotlight: Looking back at a year of Thrive with ZF Wind Power
See More >

Windpower Engineering & Development Digital Edition

Digital Edition

Browse the most current issue of Windpower Engineering & Development and back issues in an easy to use high quality format. Clip, share and download with the leading wind power engineering magazine today.

Windpower Engineering & Development
  • Wind Articles
  • Solar Power World
  • Subscribe to Windpower Engineering
  • About Us/Contact Us

Copyright © 2025 WTWH Media LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media
Privacy Policy | Advertising

Search Windpower Engineering & Development

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Most recent posts
    • News
    • Featured
  • Resources
    • Digital issues
    • Podcasts
    • Suppliers
    • Webinars
    • Events
  • Videos
  • 2025 Leadership
    • 2024 Winners
    • 2023 Winners
    • 2022 Winners
  • Magazine
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe