AEP Power Marketing, Inc.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
124 FERC ¶ 61,274 (2008)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
AEP Power Marketing, Incorporated; AEP Service Corporation; AEP Energy Partners, Incorporated; CSW Energy Services, Incorporated; and Central and South West Services, Incorporated (the applicants) (plaintiffs) owned or controlled transmission facilities and 28,439 megawatts of generation across seven states in and around the PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) market. The applicants submitted a market-power analysis for the PJM market and sought to sell wholesale power at market-based rates, which included pivotal-supplier and wholesale-market-share screens. One protester, the Ohio Commission, argued that the relevant market to consider for determining market power was the AEP East area. However, delivery of electricity into the eastern PJM area was not restricted by transmission limitations according to a recent report on the state of the PJM market. Other protesters, the West Virginia and Ohio Industrial Customers, objected to the applicants use of historical data regarding market power. The applicants turned operational control of their AEP East transmission facilities to PJM. The transmission facilities were also subject to an Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). The applicants owned no natural-gas assets and few other energy assets. FERC considered the applicants’ power-market analysis and request to charge market-based rates.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.