consistent with the Pennsylvania regulatory scheme following the enactment of the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act and the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act? Does the energy purchase price contained in Duquesne Rider No. 18 reflect a just and reasonable price such Light’s that it should continue to remain in Duquesne tariff Light’s with the force and effect of law? NRG M.B. at 5-6. NRG as the answer to both questions. As relief, NRG suggested “no” requested that we remove Rider No. 18 from Tariff or, in the alternative, Duquesne’s revise the effective six cent per kWh rate applicable to the two QF contracts at issue to a that approximates the average day-ahead locational marginal pricing in the “price Duquesne NRG R.B. at 14. Zone.” In their briefs, Duquesne and BFMA argued that (1) under PURPA, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by NRG by either modifying the wholesale rates set forth in Rider No. 18 or eliminating the Rider in total; (2) the NRG Companies failed to carry their burden of proving that the rate approved in Rider No. 18 was an unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory long-term avoided cost rate; (3) the NRG Companies lacked standing to bring the Complaint; and 4) the NRG Companies failed to join indispensable parties, namely the two projects with the PURPA PPAs, Beaver Valley and BFMA. Duquesne M.B. at 13, BFMA M.B. at 10-12. D. Commission Jurisdiction 1. Positions of the Parties The NRG Companies contended that Rider No. 18 is Duquesne’s inconsistent with Pennsylvania law and must be removed from the tariff as Company’s unjust and unreasonable. NRG pointed out that Rider No. 18 has been in effect per se
consistent with the Pennsylvania regulatory scheme following the enactment of the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act and the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act? Does the energy purchase price contained in Duquesne Light’s Rider No. 18 reflect a just and reasonable price such that it should continue to remain in Duquesne Light’s tariff with the force and effect of law? NRG M.B. at 5-6. NRG suggested “no” as the answer to both questions. As relief, NRG requested that we remove Rider No. 18 from Duquesne’s Tariff or, in the alternative, revise the effective six cent per kWh rate applicable to the two QF contracts at issue to a “price that approximates the average day-ahead locational marginal pricing in the Duquesne Zone.” NRG R.B. at 14. In their briefs, Duquesne and BFMA argued that (1) under PURPA, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by NRG by either modifying the wholesale rates set forth in Rider No. 18 or eliminating the Rider in total; (2) the NRG Companies failed to carry their burden of proving that the rate approved in Rider No. 18 was an unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory long-term avoided cost rate; (3) the NRG Companies lacked standing to bring the Complaint; and 4) the NRG Companies failed to join indispensable parties, namely the two projects with the PURPA PPAs, Beaver Valley and BFMA. Duquesne M.B. at 13, BFMA M.B. at 10-12. D. Commission Jurisdiction 1. Positions of the Parties The NRG Companies contended that Duquesne’s Rider No. 18 is inconsistent with Pennsylvania law and must be removed from the Company’s tariff as per se unjust and unreasonable. NRG pointed out that Rider No. 18 has been in effect
1325156.docx