Category: Uncategorized

Mark R. Haskell, Brett A. Snyder, and Lamiya N. Rahman

On May 21, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) issued two orders addressing methodologies for analyzing the base return on equity (“ROE”) components of rates of FERC-regulated entities. In Opinion No. 569-A, FERC revised the methodology used under section 206 of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) to evaluate the base ROEs of public utilities.¹ In a separate Policy Statement, FERC clarified that the methodology established in Opinion No. 569-A applies, with certain exceptions, to natural gas and oil pipelines.²

Opinion 569-A

To change a public utility’s rates, including ROE, in a complaint proceeding under section 206 of the FPA, FERC must (i) make a finding that an existing rate is unjust and unreasonable; and (ii) determine a just and reasonable rate.³

FERC’s recent order arose from two complaint proceedings challenging the base ROE of Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) transmission owners.⁴ In November 2019, FERC issued Opinion No. 569, establishing a revised methodology to determine whether the existing base ROE was unjust and unreasonable under the first prong of FPA section 206, and if so, to establish a new just and reasonable replacement ROE under the second prong.⁵

Among other things, Opinion No. 569 relied on the discounted cash flow model (“DCF”)⁶ and capital-asset pricing model (“CAPM”)⁷ in the first prong of its FPA section 206 analysis, and declined to use two other models—i.e., the Expected Earnings⁸ and Risk Premium⁹ models. FERC adopted the use of ranges of presumptively just and reasonable ROEs that would be based on the risk profile of a utility or group of utilities. FERC gave equal weight to the DCF and CAPM models to establish composite zones of reasonableness. Absent evidence to the contrary, an ROE within the zone of reasonableness would be presumptively just and reasonable while an ROE outside this range would be presumptively unjust and unreasonable. FERC also relied on the DCF and CAPM models (and declined to use the Expected Earnings and Risk Premium models) in the second prong of its section 206 analysis in order to establish a new just and reasonable ROE.¹⁰

Please click here for the full client alert.