offtaker of the net electric output of two small hydroelectric power generators located in Pennsylvania. 14. Per the power purchase agreements currently in place between Duquesne Light and the small hydroelectric power generators the electric energy is purchased subject to (“the PPAs”), the terms and conditions of Duquesne Tariff . . . . The Light’s price of the power so purchased by NRG Midwest is governed, under both the PPAs and the amended Revised QF Agreement, by Contract Rider No. 18 to Duquesne Tariff. Light’s 15. Because NRG with Duquesne Light Midwest’s relationship through both the PPAs and the amended Revised QF Agency Agreement is specifically governed by the provisions of Duquesne approved Tariff, and because current Tariff Rider No. 18 Light’s may present an indirect form of rate discrimination benefitting certain customer-generators, NRG interest in the Midwest’s present matter is direct, immediate and substantial. NRG Complaint ¶¶ 13-15. Duquesne Light admitted assertions in Paragraph 13 of the complaint and NRG’s admitted, in part, the agency agreement asserted in Paragraph 14. Duquesne Light NRG’s further maintained the agency agreement was subject to Duquesne FERC-approved Light’s (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) tariff. As to Paragraph 15, Duquesne Light stated, in part, the averments were conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading was required. Duquesne Answer ¶¶ 13-15. Light’s B. Rider No. 18 Dispute Subsequent to the hearings, NRG retreated from its concerns as to the proposed allocation of the revenue increase and proposed rate design. Instead NRG reserved the right to challenge the Settling Settlement once it was filed and focused on Rider No. 18 issues. Parties’ NRG argued as follows: Upon consideration of the evidence elicited at the hearing in this proceeding, the NRG Companies have decided not to contest the various non-unanimous settlement issues identified in the common
offtaker of the net electric output of two small hydroelectric power generators located in Pennsylvania. 14. Per the power purchase agreements currently in place between Duquesne Light and the small hydroelectric power generators (“the PPAs”), the electric energy is purchased subject to the terms and conditions of Duquesne Light’s Tariff . . . . The price of the power so purchased by NRG Midwest is governed, under both the PPAs and the amended Revised QF Agreement, by Contract Rider No. 18 to Duquesne Light’s Tariff. 15. Because NRG Midwest’s relationship with Duquesne Light through both the PPAs and the amended Revised QF Agency Agreement is specifically governed by the provisions of Duquesne Light’s approved Tariff, and because current Tariff Rider No. 18 may present an indirect form of rate discrimination benefitting certain customer-generators, NRG Midwest’s interest in the present matter is direct, immediate and substantial. NRG Complaint ¶¶ 13-15. Duquesne Light admitted NRG’s assertions in Paragraph 13 of the complaint and admitted, in part, the agency agreement asserted in NRG’s Paragraph 14. Duquesne Light further maintained the agency agreement was subject to Duquesne Light’s FERC-approved (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) tariff. As to Paragraph 15, Duquesne Light stated, in part, the averments were conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading was required. Duquesne Light’s Answer ¶¶ 13-15. B. Rider No. 18 Dispute Subsequent to the hearings, NRG retreated from its concerns as to the proposed allocation of the revenue increase and proposed rate design. Instead NRG reserved the right to challenge the Settling Parties’ Settlement once it was filed and focused on Rider No. 18 issues. NRG argued as follows: Upon consideration of the evidence elicited at the hearing in this proceeding, the NRG Companies have decided not to contest the various non-unanimous settlement issues identified in the common
1276452.docx