While the factual nuance here seeks our regulatory reformation of the Duquesne QF contracts not by reformation or reconsideration of the contracts directly but by way of elimination or reformation of the tariff rider that contains the only pricing term applicable to those contracts, we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. But for the memorialization of this pricing term in a state tariff, the issue would be readily framed and resolved as a federal issue under federal law involving a federal contract contesting the long-term price for independently generated hydroelectric power. We cannot assume jurisdiction over a subject matter that PURPA has specifically exempted simply on the basis of the form chosen to memorialize the price. A contract left with either no price term or a substantially revised price term is still an altered contract. As even NRG agreed, removal of the tariff will leave the parties in a legal dispute. NRG M.B. at 15; NRG Midwest St. 1-S Commission should simply remove itself from (“The any contractual dispute between Duquesne Light and NRG Midwest by requiring Duquesne Light to remove Rider No. 18 from its Tariff. Any ensuing legal battles should be of no concern to the Commission.”). We agree with the conclusion of witness that the NRG Duquesne’s position that they are not attempting to challenge the PPAs ignores Companies’ “simply the reality of the relief Duquesne St. 1-RJ at 8. We also agree with the requested[.]” characterization presented by BFMA in its Exceptions: It is of no consequence that the QF price to be changed is in Duquesne's as opposed to a power purchase tariff The FERC's PURPA regulations make it clear agreement. that QF arrangements can lock-in prices for QF sales based on a enforceable that is not necessarily “legally obligation” derived from a contract. Indeed, as noted above, the Commission's 1987 Order the $0.06/kWh price in “locked in” both Rider No. 18 and the PPA. This is clearly the “legally enforceable envisioned by FERC. The R.D. obligation” erroneously posits that the and holdings Freehold Scrubgrass
While the factual nuance here seeks our regulatory reformation of the Duquesne QF contracts not by reformation or reconsideration of the contracts directly but by way of elimination or reformation of the tariff rider that contains the only pricing term applicable to those contracts, we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. But for the memorialization of this pricing term in a state tariff, the issue would be readily framed and resolved as a federal issue under federal law involving a federal contract contesting the long-term price for independently generated hydroelectric power. We cannot assume jurisdiction over a subject matter that PURPA has specifically exempted simply on the basis of the form chosen to memorialize the price. A contract left with either no price term or a substantially revised price term is still an altered contract. As even NRG agreed, removal of the tariff will leave the parties in a legal dispute. NRG M.B. at 15; NRG Midwest St. 1-S (“The Commission should simply remove itself from any contractual dispute between Duquesne Light and NRG Midwest by requiring Duquesne Light to remove Rider No. 18 from its Tariff. Any ensuing legal battles should be of no concern to the Commission.”). We agree with the conclusion of Duquesne’s witness that the NRG Companies’ position that they are not attempting to challenge the PPAs “simply ignores the reality of the relief requested[.]” Duquesne St. 1-RJ at 8. We also agree with the characterization presented by BFMA in its Exceptions: It is of no consequence that the QF price to be changed is in Duquesne's tariff as opposed to a power purchase agreement. The FERC's PURPA regulations make it clear that QF arrangements can lock-in prices for QF sales based on a “legally enforceable obligation” that is not necessarily derived from a contract. Indeed, as noted above, the Commission's 1987 Order “locked in” the $0.06/kWh price in both Rider No. 18 and the PPA. This is clearly the “legally enforceable obligation” envisioned by FERC. The R.D. erroneously posits that the Freehold and Scrubgrass holdings
1325156.docx