[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Phase number 21-1166, Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc.

[00:00:05] Speaker 00:
Petitioner versus Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

[00:00:09] Speaker 00:
Mr. Hughes for the petitioner, Mr. Ediger for the respondent.

[00:00:19] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
And may it please the Court, Paul Hughes for Petitioner Independent Power Producers of New York.

[00:00:29] Speaker 03:
This case reduces to a straightforward question.

[00:00:32] Speaker 03:
As part of its rate making, every four years, the New York independent system operator has to make a predictive judgment as to the anticipated economic life of a new power plant that would be built to meet increased demand.

[00:00:47] Speaker 03:
The issue here is whether the system operator reasonably exercise its judgment to use a 17 year amortization period.

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
In rejecting the system operator's proposed rate, FERC aired twice.

[00:01:00] Speaker 03:
First, FERC answered the wrong question.

[00:01:03] Speaker 03:
The issue should have been whether the system operator's choice was a reasonable one.

[00:01:07] Speaker 03:
Instead, FERC viewed its task as weighing two competing options and choosing the one it preferred.

[00:01:14] Speaker 03:
That mistakes FERC's role in a Section 205 proceeding.

[00:01:18] Speaker 03:
Second, the system operator's choice was.

[00:01:21] Speaker 01:
Are you talking about the, as to that sort of balancing between options, are you talking about the commission decision itself or it's brief here?

[00:01:29] Speaker 03:
Well, I think it's the commission decision itself, Your Honor, but it's brief, I think elaborates and makes clear what the commission did.

[00:01:36] Speaker 01:
Where in the commission decision itself do you see them saying we just balance these things and pick whichever one we like best?

[00:01:43] Speaker 03:
Well, your honor, in the commission's decision, there's no finding that the proposal that was selected or advanced in the proposed rate filing by the system operator was unjust and unreasonable.

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
I know that those words out there I'm just asking where you think that they, I'm looking, I'm looking for.

[00:01:58] Speaker 01:
the signal of the mode of analysis that you reference.

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
I understand what you're referring to from their brief.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
I just want to understand where you think they were similarly, apart from not having used those particular words in their determination, where you think they were misapprehended.

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
Where you can find evidence in their decision, they misapprehended their role.

[00:02:22] Speaker 03:
In paragraph 161, your honor, I think the mode of analysis that FERC offers here is that it considers essentially from first principles what it is that it believes the appropriate result should be applying.

[00:02:37] Speaker 01:
Well, it begins by saying NYISO has failed to demonstrate that this proposal is consistent with its services tariff requirement.

[00:02:45] Speaker 01:
That's exactly what it's supposed to do, right?

[00:02:49] Speaker 01:
You don't dispute that that's the type of analysis.

[00:02:52] Speaker 03:
Your honor, I think what's missing from here is any determination as to what the scope of reasonable rate making would be and then any explanation as to why what was selected by the system operator was unreasonable against the backdrop.

[00:03:06] Speaker 03:
I think the closest that forgets is in paragraph 161 where it suggests that a rate as selected with 17 years could quote unquote be unnecessarily high.

[00:03:17] Speaker 03:
but I don't think that their suggestion that this rate could be unnecessarily high is the same as a finding that it is an unjust and unreasonable.

[00:03:24] Speaker 01:
What about do you have a similar argument with respect to the statement that they failed to demonstrate that the NYISO who does have the burden of proof here to demonstrate just and reasonableness failed to demonstrate that this proposal is consistent with the services tariff requirement

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
to assess new facilities, power facilities.

[00:03:48] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:03:48] Speaker 03:
And I think exactly from what you're saying.

[00:03:50] Speaker 01:
That's distinct from the may result in high costs.

[00:03:53] Speaker 01:
That's a distinct explanation for what NYISO failed to do.

[00:03:58] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, I think what FERC understands that to be is an argument that it's a suggestion that the system operator didn't meet its burden of demonstrating.

[00:04:08] Speaker 03:
And I don't think that analysis gets FERC where it needs to be for this reason.

[00:04:13] Speaker 03:
I agree that if there were a situation where a utility just offered a rate without any reasoned analysis underlying it as to the basis for how it arrived at that rate determination and submitted it with, again, no analysis,

[00:04:27] Speaker 03:
The commission would be justified in those circumstances and saying because there was no explanation behind it, there was a failure to meet a burden in in that gap, the sort of balancing and weighing exercise that describes in its brief would be appropriate, but that's not what occurred in this case.

[00:04:44] Speaker 03:
at Joint Appendix pages 51 to 54, there are pages of analysis that incorporates other underlying reports and analysis, all of which that show that the system operator engaged in reasonable analysis.

[00:04:56] Speaker 03:
So I don't think it's a situation which you can say they failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the reasoning behind the reasonableness finding.

[00:05:04] Speaker 03:
And I think there's a very important legal and policy argument as to why

[00:05:09] Speaker 03:
FERC cannot so lightly find that there was a failure to meet a burden and substitute its judgment.

[00:05:14] Speaker 03:
And this is a point of agreement that we have with FERC.

[00:05:17] Speaker 03:
So at Joint Appendix page 1110, note 203, FERC cites and quotes the City of Bethany case for the underlying governing framework here.

[00:05:27] Speaker 03:
And this is what FERC says in that footnote.

[00:05:29] Speaker 03:
The commission's authority under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act is, and then citing this court's precedent, quote, limited to an inquiry into whether the rates proposed by utility are reasonable, and not to extend to determining whether a proposed rate schedule is more or less reasonable than alternative rate designs.

[00:05:47] Speaker 03:
Now, if FERC could just add sort of pro-formal language saying that there was a failure to meet a burden, and then that was a basis by which FERC could then substitute its judgment and engage in the balancing and weighing exercise it describes in its brief, that would really negate the flexibility that Section 205 provides to the utility to make a reasoned determination of an appropriate rate within the range of reasonableness.

[00:06:14] Speaker 03:
So to step back for a moment, and I think

[00:06:17] Speaker 03:
To answer the court's question, I think it's appropriate for FERC to engage in the sort of weighing and balancing exercise that is described and undertook here if it does one of two things.

[00:06:26] Speaker 03:
If it makes a clear finding that what the utility has done is unreasonable, we don't think that they've done that here.

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
Or second, if they were to find that utility has failed to give any reason to explanation or analysis to support its proposal,

[00:06:40] Speaker 03:
and in that lack of reasoning or explanation, there would be potentially a gap for the commission to fill.

[00:06:46] Speaker 03:
But neither of those things happened here.

[00:06:47] Speaker 03:
Instead, the commission went straight into weighing what it viewed as the 17th or 20th year and then making based on its own separate predictive judgment what it thought the appropriate rate structure would be.

[00:07:00] Speaker 03:
So we think that on that ground alone is a basis for this court to set aside what FERC has done.

[00:07:07] Speaker 03:
But I'd be happy to move to our second argument, which is even setting aside that failure in process of the commission.

[00:07:15] Speaker 03:
I think just substantively what the commission did here is not supportable.

[00:07:19] Speaker 03:
And that's because the system operator's exercise of its predictive judgment was eminently reasonable in this case.

[00:07:25] Speaker 03:
And where I begin with is the reason it's reasonable is how

[00:07:28] Speaker 03:
The text of the Climate Act works, its text, the manifest legislative history behind it, and as well as how it's been interpreted by agencies in New York State subsequently.

[00:07:38] Speaker 03:
Now I recognize FERC has offered what I view as two counter arguments that I'd like to talk about.

[00:07:43] Speaker 03:
The one is the view that the target date

[00:07:45] Speaker 03:
may at some point be modified.

[00:07:47] Speaker 03:
And the second, the assertion that there could be some sort of alternative fuels that could be switched such that power units that are built could switch to alternative fuels.

[00:07:56] Speaker 03:
So I certainly would like to get to the first two counter arguments.

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
But to set the table first is the Climate Act has a manifest intent and purpose.

[00:08:05] Speaker 03:
And that is that there will be no fossil fuel generated power beginning in 2040.

[00:08:11] Speaker 03:
The text, this is section 66 P2 I think is quite clear in establishing this mandate, and that says the Public Service Commission quote unquote shall establish a program to require that by the

[00:08:22] Speaker 03:
year 2040 the statewide electrical system will be zero emissions and at the time the climate act was enacted, it was universally agreed upon that the purpose of this law, the reason the legislature enacted it the governor proposed it was in order to eliminate fossil generated electricity beginning in 2040.

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
We've pointed to the governor's memorandum that summarizes the purpose and intent behind this bill, the remarks the governor made at the time of signing all of the legislative history is in accord with it.

[00:08:50] Speaker 03:
That's the purpose of this act.

[00:08:53] Speaker 03:
And further, that's how a New York agency

[00:08:55] Speaker 03:
has continued to interpret the act since it was enacted.

[00:08:58] Speaker 03:
So as we pointed in our brief, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation has denied multiple permits, one to a story, another dance camera, on the view, and they say, quote unquote, the statutory requirement that all electricity in the state be emission free by 2040.

[00:09:12] Speaker 03:
That is how the New York Department of Environmental Conservation understands and presently applies the statute.

[00:09:19] Speaker 03:
So that's the basis on which the system operator determined that there would be no natural gas generation for electricity beginning in 2040.

[00:09:27] Speaker 03:
And that was a reasonable determination in the proposed rate.

[00:09:32] Speaker 00:
Mr. Hughes, even here, even if FERC's reasoning in rejecting the 17-year amortization period isn't maybe a model of clarity, isn't there enough in the record to support its decision?

[00:09:48] Speaker 00:
Couldn't FERC provide its expertise to conclude that it was very unlikely that gas fuel and power plants would need to continue to be in effect at 2040 because of reliability issues, which the Climate Act specifically recognizes?

[00:10:04] Speaker 03:
So thank you, Your Honor.

[00:10:06] Speaker 03:
I think the answer is no.

[00:10:07] Speaker 03:
That was not something that was within FERC's ability to do.

[00:10:09] Speaker 03:
And the background legal principle, again, that FERC agrees with here is when

[00:10:14] Speaker 03:
The agency has to make a predictive judgment about what is going to occur in the future.

[00:10:18] Speaker 03:
And part of that predictive judgment is what the state of the law will be.

[00:10:22] Speaker 03:
There's a recognition that what the law is going to look like in 2040 is something that is nobody can can predict with certainty and so FERC has established a framework to assess that.

[00:10:32] Speaker 03:
in order to minimize speculation in the current day.

[00:10:35] Speaker 03:
And that framework, as they agree, and they point to a New York operator case in 2017, what they say is you apply the existing affirmative mandates and you do not guess whether, quote unquote, regulators will act at some point in the future.

[00:10:51] Speaker 01:
I know, but this is a case, I'm sorry, tell me if I'm interrupting you Judge Rao, but this is a case where the statute itself says,

[00:11:02] Speaker 01:
more is yet to come, that these regulations have to be issued by the commission and that there's sort of, you know, protections in case, you know, this looks like it's not gonna work.

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
And so we're gonna need, we may need to adjust things as we go along.

[00:11:20] Speaker 01:
If it's not going to, you know, we gotta make sure whatever we do that we're providing safe, reliable power.

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
So the current state of this law has embedded in it

[00:11:31] Speaker 01:
These contingencies.

[00:11:36] Speaker 01:
And you have.

[00:11:36] Speaker 01:
Am I right, the Commission.

[00:11:40] Speaker 01:
opposed to your position in this case, the one that's supposed to issue those regulations.

[00:11:47] Speaker 01:
You can correct my little fact if I'm wrong on that.

[00:11:48] Speaker 01:
Regardless, the statute itself has it embedded in there that more is yet to be determined and things, you know, there's a chance things may shift.

[00:11:58] Speaker 01:
Then why aren't we in the land that Judge Brown was referring to where FERC's predictive judgment is appropriate?

[00:12:09] Speaker 03:
So a few things and you know I would like to come back to what the Public Service Commission said in this proceeding because the basis that they opposed was on fuel switching, not that there would be a change in target.

[00:12:20] Speaker 03:
And I think that is an important distinction I'd like to explain the problems with fuel switching but but that's a bit of a sideline so let me come back to that in a minute moment if I may.

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
To answer your question directly is what FERC law requires of the system operator and this is what the system operator said at Joint Appendix 52 is we apply the law as it is currently what it currently mandates.

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
recognizing that there are always future acts in any statute, any statute can be repealed by the legislature, modified by the legislature, and often there can be changes or exceptions that are later granted.

[00:12:54] Speaker 03:
The court is quite right to say that there is a recognition that future acts could be taken, but the distinction that FERC law draws, that FERC endorses in this case, but just was improperly applied, is this.

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
The question is, what is the affirmative obligation as we stand here today?

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
We don't guess at what affirmative actions could we could hypothesize might happen in the future, but we don't know.

[00:13:18] Speaker 01:
Just be clear what I'm asking.

[00:13:20] Speaker 01:
This doesn't feel like, well, maybe next year's legislator will appeal the law.

[00:13:25] Speaker 01:
This doesn't feel like that type of

[00:13:27] Speaker 01:
um speculation at all or who knows what to legislate your 10 years from now do they might throw the whole thing out that's not what was going on here they they the best defense of their decision and speaking for years they pick up the statute and they go this statute itself says the path forward is yet to be determined with any detail and we have this goal in 2040 but we have this simultaneous goal of

[00:13:55] Speaker 01:
whatever you do, reliability of power must be preserved.

[00:13:58] Speaker 01:
And so we have two goals that could themselves be intention and a statute that itself says the path is yet to be determined.

[00:14:06] Speaker 01:
So we're not talking about who's gonna repeal things in the future, a whole new agency is coming in.

[00:14:10] Speaker 01:
We're looking at the current obligations under this statute.

[00:14:13] Speaker 01:
That feels different to me.

[00:14:15] Speaker 01:
Tell me why I'm wrong about that.

[00:14:16] Speaker 03:
Well, because the current obligation under the statute is to shut down by 2040.

[00:14:20] Speaker 03:
And let me explain that.

[00:14:21] Speaker 03:
I think FERC's position

[00:14:23] Speaker 03:
is disrespectful of New York State law because, as I said a moment ago, the legislature and the governor have plainly said that the purpose of developing this law is a shut off of natural gas by 2040.

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
And this is what in legally binding documents,

[00:14:38] Speaker 03:
the New York Department of Environmental Conservation is saying the state of the law is today, I quote again, this is at the Astoria decision at page 11, quote unquote, the statutory requirement that all electricity in the state be emission free by 2040.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
That is the state of the law as a New York agency currently understands it and is making binding determinations as to its permitting process.

[00:14:59] Speaker 01:
Sorry, is that agency, but if it's not in the statute itself, the statute itself textually,

[00:15:05] Speaker 01:
has more, at least to be read as having more, less certainty about that goal.

[00:15:14] Speaker 01:
The statute itself, are you saying that there's case precedent from FERC that it ignored that says, well, as long as you've got an agency, an expert agency talking about its view, it's bound by that as well?

[00:15:30] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, the case pressing that we rely on, this is what FERC says, and this is in the New York Independent System Operator Order from 2017 at paragraph 61.

[00:15:38] Speaker 03:
And FERC directs that we do not guess whether, quote unquote, regulators will act at some point in the future.

[00:15:45] Speaker 03:
And when we apply that to this statute- Yeah, but here, they don't have to guess.

[00:15:49] Speaker 01:
The statute is clear that regulators will act in the future.

[00:15:54] Speaker 01:
And what we- Your Honor, what- So there's no guessing about that.

[00:15:56] Speaker 03:
It's just-

[00:15:58] Speaker 03:
My apologies.

[00:15:59] Speaker 03:
No, no, my apologies.

[00:16:01] Speaker 01:
Sorry, Your Honor.

[00:16:02] Speaker 03:
It's harder on Jim.

[00:16:04] Speaker 03:
Go ahead.

[00:16:04] Speaker 03:
Again, I apologize.

[00:16:06] Speaker 03:
We don't guess because 66 P2, Your Honor, is written in mandatory terms.

[00:16:10] Speaker 03:
That is, what we know is obligatory is the Commission shall establish a program and the result of that program will be a shutdown by 2040.

[00:16:18] Speaker 03:
Now, the language in the statute that FERC prefers says that separately,

[00:16:22] Speaker 03:
for the commission may at some point make a future finding to adjust that target date.

[00:16:29] Speaker 03:
That is the thing that we do not know is going to happen.

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
The status quo as it exists today is the 2040 shutdown.

[00:16:36] Speaker 03:
And we know that because that's the one provision of the statutory tax that is affirmative and mandatory that creates the mandatory obligation.

[00:16:43] Speaker 03:
We know that because that's what the governor and the legislature said that they intended to do at the time they enacted this.

[00:16:48] Speaker 03:
And we know that because that is what

[00:16:50] Speaker 03:
the state agency who has to make decisions about clean air permits is understanding the law today to mean, and that is how it's getting applied.

[00:16:58] Speaker 03:
That doesn't rule out the possibility that the Public Service Commission could take some future action to change that, but that's precisely where the FERC law comes in, as we don't make guesses as to if and what FERC speculation is, is that although the governor and the legislature and the agencies are saying shut down by 2040,

[00:17:18] Speaker 03:
FERC's essential point is that at some point New York is going to realize that their target date of 2040 is a bad idea because it's going to lead to reliability problems and they're going to retreat from what it is that New York has affirmatively said they're going to do.

[00:17:32] Speaker 03:
Our point is that's a guess.

[00:17:34] Speaker 03:
Maybe New York will effectuate the law as it currently exists and as the agencies are currently applying and it's disrespectful of FERC

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
to suggest that New York is not going to in fact be able to implement and apply the law as currently written and will have to write an exception.

[00:17:49] Speaker 03:
It's contrary to what the governor and legislature said that they were doing in enacting this law.

[00:17:55] Speaker 03:
That's where the future speculation comes in.

[00:17:57] Speaker 03:
And that's where FERC precedent says in order to minimize the effect of speculation on these predictive judgments,

[00:18:03] Speaker 03:
we apply the affirmative mandatory obligations, which is the 2040, and we don't take into account the Future Act, which would be a moving of the target date by either the legislature or the commission.

[00:18:15] Speaker 03:
And I think that's the key distinction that we're making is between what is affirmatively required today versus what are actions that could be taken in the future that could move that, that right now

[00:18:28] Speaker 03:
We're guessing at based on reliability and other concerns for access might happen, but we just simply don't know.

[00:18:34] Speaker 03:
And the, you know, the kind of wrap up of that point is what fork has said in this law is to the extent that there's a change in the future something that we don't know.

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
but say there's a change of the 2040 date, there's a ready-made solution for that, which is the demand curve is reset every four years.

[00:18:53] Speaker 03:
So today, when we do the four-year demand curve, we use the affirmative obligations as they exist.

[00:18:58] Speaker 03:
If as FERC is speculating that there is some subsequent action taken by the commission that is an affirmative act that changes that, then in the next demand curve, that will be taken into account.

[00:19:10] Speaker 03:
But we don't guess today what might happen someday down the road.

[00:19:15] Speaker 03:
it.

[00:19:17] Speaker 02:
Good you did you have something else you want to cover.

[00:19:20] Speaker 03:
Yeah, I was just gonna talk briefly about the alternative fuel the fuel switching issue is the issue that the service, the Public Service Commission mentioned, if I may, I know I'm over my time.

[00:19:29] Speaker 02:
Yeah, just do it in a minute, please.

[00:19:31] Speaker 03:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:19:32] Speaker 03:
They're really three problems and I'll touch on them briefly about the fuel switching.

[00:19:36] Speaker 02:
That is all three in one minute.

[00:19:37] Speaker 03:
Yes, your honor.

[00:19:38] Speaker 03:
The first is that a Chenery problem, the fuel switching argument was just not made below.

[00:19:42] Speaker 03:
The second, the idea that there would be fuel switching in 2040 to hydrogen or renewable natural gas simply doesn't work on this record because at J514, my client citing record evidence explained that this would be massively costly and would significantly increase the cost basis of the project requiring very different kind of demand curve.

[00:20:02] Speaker 03:
At the very least, FERC would have had to have responded to that substantial rebuttal.

[00:20:06] Speaker 03:
They didn't.

[00:20:07] Speaker 03:
So that's not an argument they can rely upon.

[00:20:09] Speaker 03:
And the third is this argument, I would just call it speculation on stilts.

[00:20:12] Speaker 03:
It's both legal speculation that there will even be fuel switching allowed.

[00:20:17] Speaker 03:
That would require some affirmative act by the commission that's not yet happened.

[00:20:20] Speaker 03:
And second, it's technologically speculative because it's unclear that there's going to be grid level hydrogen or renewable natural gas that will be available.

[00:20:28] Speaker 03:
The Astoria decision says that, Patrick.

[00:20:30] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:20:30] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:20:31] Speaker 02:
We'll hear from FERC.

[00:20:35] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:20:35] Speaker 02:
Mr. Ettinger.

[00:21:00] Speaker 04:
Good morning and may it please the court.

[00:21:03] Speaker 04:
I'm Scott Edgar for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and thank you for hearing this case today.

[00:21:10] Speaker 04:
I'd like to go straight to the question of the procedural question about the just and reasonableness of the proposal to use the 17-year amortization period.

[00:21:25] Speaker 04:
And as we discuss in the brief, it is clear that the commission in this case, looking at paragraph 19 of the commission's order, it is clear that the commission made a finding found that the 17 year amortization period is not just unreasonable.

[00:21:46] Speaker 04:
There are tons of myriad issues in this case that the commission accepted without discussing, and it singled out this particular issue, and it found all those issues to be just and reasonable, as it said explicitly in paragraph 19.

[00:22:06] Speaker 04:
explicitly singles out the amortization period and addresses it separately.

[00:22:11] Speaker 04:
I would submit that the only interpretation of that is that the commission found it to be unjust and unreasonable.

[00:22:19] Speaker 04:
In addition, the paragraph 161 that analyzes the amortization period found the 17 year period to be inconsistent with the tariff.

[00:22:32] Speaker 04:
And I would submit that there's no,

[00:22:35] Speaker 04:
that that necessarily means that the commission found it to be unjust and unreasonable.

[00:22:43] Speaker 04:
I would like to.

[00:22:46] Speaker 04:
I would like to also address the

[00:22:52] Speaker 04:
In the petitioner's brief in this case, I tried to explain what the commission did in this case.

[00:23:00] Speaker 04:
This court might get the wrong impression from what the record looked like from reading the petitioner's brief.

[00:23:06] Speaker 04:
There is no discussion of the market monitor's position.

[00:23:10] Speaker 04:
There's no discussion of the consumer stakeholder's position.

[00:23:14] Speaker 04:
There's no discussion of the New York commission's position in this case.

[00:23:19] Speaker 02:
What do they need to focus on other than the Commission's decision?

[00:23:28] Speaker 02:
That's what's before us is the Commission's decision.

[00:23:31] Speaker 04:
Absolutely.

[00:23:31] Speaker 02:
And the petitioners focused their challenge on the Commission's decision.

[00:23:37] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:23:41] Speaker 04:
What's wrong with that is that it ignores the record evidence that the Commission relied on here.

[00:23:47] Speaker 04:
What I'm trying to suggest, Your Honor, is that the record looks very different than what was suggested.

[00:23:54] Speaker 04:
and there is a record that involves comments from the market monitor, from the New York commission.

[00:24:00] Speaker 04:
That's what the commission relied on when it made the determination that the 17-year period is not just unreasonable.

[00:24:08] Speaker 02:
Let me just give you one example.

[00:24:14] Speaker 02:
The commission says, look, the state might suspend the zero emission requirement.

[00:24:22] Speaker 02:
That's one of the things FERC says.

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
So what in the record supports that?

[00:24:29] Speaker 04:
Excuse me, in paragraph 61, the commission explicitly relies on the comments of the market monitor.

[00:24:37] Speaker 04:
And for that, your honor, the comments are at the JA 954.

[00:24:45] Speaker 04:
And in addition, the comments of the- Not all of our comments relies on one comment.

[00:24:52] Speaker 01:
Yeah, I mean, one comment relies on one comment.

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
It relies at the 17 year immobilization period fails to consider that the statute does not require power generators to retire.

[00:25:05] Speaker 01:
That's the only thing it references.

[00:25:08] Speaker 04:
That is correct.

[00:25:09] Speaker 04:
I would, I would add to that, your honor, that the

[00:25:11] Speaker 04:
The comments of the consumer stakeholders, which includes the New York commission here explicitly stated that they supported the comments of the market monitor.

[00:25:22] Speaker 04:
And that's it.

[00:25:23] Speaker 01:
I do.

[00:25:23] Speaker 01:
Does does for reference that I mean you're complaining that they haven't referenced that record information where did for reference that.

[00:25:30] Speaker 04:
The commission discussed the comments of the market monitor.

[00:25:35] Speaker 01:
I get they've got not the comments.

[00:25:40] Speaker 01:
If there's another one relevant to the issue before us, to be clear, if there's another one, I read to you the one reference that they have.

[00:25:49] Speaker 01:
I don't see them referencing the views of the commission.

[00:25:53] Speaker 01:
Did I miss that on this issue?

[00:25:55] Speaker 04:
They don't explicitly, but they discuss the, they reference the comments in paragraph 157.

[00:26:01] Speaker 04:
This is at JA 1121.

[00:26:04] Speaker 04:
And they're the consumer stakeholders, which includes the New York Commission stated.

[00:26:10] Speaker 01:
That's just summarizing everybody's arguments.

[00:26:12] Speaker 01:
That's not them embracing it.

[00:26:13] Speaker 01:
That's not part, that's just right.

[00:26:15] Speaker 01:
That's just, that's not part of the commission determination.

[00:26:18] Speaker 04:
But that is the determination.

[00:26:20] Speaker 01:
No, actually, no, that's labeled arguments.

[00:26:23] Speaker 01:
And then there's on page J.A.

[00:26:25] Speaker 01:
1123 Commission determination.

[00:26:29] Speaker 01:
But what I mean, we're reviewing the commission determination, we're not fly-specking how well it recorded or reiterated what other people were arguing.

[00:26:36] Speaker 01:
And it's in its determination.

[00:26:38] Speaker 01:
I just want to be crystal clear, unless I'm missing something.

[00:26:42] Speaker 01:
It doesn't reference the commission's view.

[00:26:44] Speaker 01:
It references one point made by the MMU, which is that the statute on its face does not require power generators to retire.

[00:26:53] Speaker 01:
Is there more that I'm missing where they expressly referenced these other arguments?

[00:27:01] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:27:03] Speaker 01:
No, I said arguments rather than evidence.

[00:27:05] Speaker 04:
There are no other explicit references, but the entire pleading of the market monitor supports this point.

[00:27:12] Speaker 04:
And I would submit that.

[00:27:13] Speaker 01:
It very well may, but the commission didn't embrace the entire pleading of the market monitor.

[00:27:20] Speaker 04:
It may not have explicitly, but the finding is that.

[00:27:23] Speaker 01:
Where's your language that it's implicitly embrace the entire finding as opposed to the one finding that it

[00:27:30] Speaker 01:
as MMU notes.

[00:27:32] Speaker 04:
The entire filing supports the proposition that the New York Act does not require the fossil fuel generation today to retire in 2040.

[00:27:45] Speaker 04:
And that is exactly what the commission finds in paragraph 161.

[00:27:49] Speaker 04:
I agree with that.

[00:27:52] Speaker 04:
And so I think respectfully, Your Honor, I don't think there's any other way to read that paragraph and what the commission is relying on.

[00:28:00] Speaker 04:
I would also.

[00:28:15] Speaker 01:
Where do they if if these fossil fuel resources that they reference are going to stay in operation after 2040 I think you explained in your brief that they would have to engage in retrofitting or other substantial technological changes correct.

[00:28:35] Speaker 04:
That.

[00:28:36] Speaker 04:
is one possibility, but that's not the only possibility.

[00:28:39] Speaker 04:
In the footnote 255, the Commission quotes the language of the New York Act, which there's a couple aspects of the Act that I'd like to point out.

[00:28:53] Speaker 04:
First, the New York Commission, which hasn't issued regulations yet.

[00:28:59] Speaker 04:
I would agree with the point that the precedent relied on by the power producer simply doesn't apply here and we're actually consistent with that precedent because we don't have a clear environmental measure at stake here that the commission should rely on.

[00:29:21] Speaker 04:
What I was going to point out is that the language in that footnote both tells the New York Commission that it must design the program, which it has yet to do, taking into account reliability concerns.

[00:29:36] Speaker 04:
And in addition, the further subsection of the Act, subsection four,

[00:29:43] Speaker 04:
talks about how modifications can be made by the New York community.

[00:29:48] Speaker 01:
That's what I was asking you about, right?

[00:29:50] Speaker 01:
So modifications at fossil fuel.

[00:29:52] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:29:53] Speaker 01:
Fossil fuel producers would have to undertake, right?

[00:29:57] Speaker 04:
And that is explicitly contemplated in the act.

[00:30:02] Speaker 01:
And then I assume modifications cost money?

[00:30:05] Speaker 04:
They do.

[00:30:07] Speaker 01:
And maybe maybe a lot of money.

[00:30:09] Speaker 01:
But that's nothing else seems like a lot of money to me these numbers anyhow.

[00:30:12] Speaker 01:
It costs money right.

[00:30:14] Speaker 04:
That's right.

[00:30:15] Speaker 01:
And where do you factor.

[00:30:17] Speaker 01:
If that's what FERC was relying on where do they factor.

[00:30:20] Speaker 01:
those extra costs into determining, I mean, they wanted to take the existing, you guys have a long phrase for it, but I wouldn't say the existing power plant measure that you're using to calculate the rate here, the localized embedded, whatever all your words are on that.

[00:30:40] Speaker 01:
They just did that as an unmodified power plant.

[00:30:45] Speaker 01:
And they said, and they didn't disagree with that, but yet that can't be right.

[00:30:51] Speaker 01:
If they're right, if what FERC is based in its decision on is the capacity, amortization has to reflect the capacity of these plants to make significant changes to their technology to be in compliance with the 20 and still be there in 2040.

[00:31:08] Speaker 01:
And they could still be there in 2040 if they make these significant changes, at least that's one option.

[00:31:13] Speaker 01:
that FERC discerned.

[00:31:16] Speaker 01:
They would have to make these significant changes, but those significant changes would mean that the baseline that was used, the baseline plant cost that was used was all wrong, too.

[00:31:26] Speaker 01:
And so FERC can't have it both ways.

[00:31:30] Speaker 04:
Well, I would submit, Your Honor.

[00:31:32] Speaker 01:
Where did it grapple with the costs, those increased costs, and their effect on rates?

[00:31:37] Speaker 04:
And again,

[00:31:39] Speaker 04:
The paragraph 161 is in front of the court.

[00:31:42] Speaker 01:
It doesn't in that paragraph, but again, it's cited the market monitor and the market monitor discusses this and- Oh, but again, I know you want the reference to the market monitor to be everything the market monitor says, but I think they've said specifically what part of the market monitor they're relying on, that there's no required shutdown.

[00:32:03] Speaker 01:
Further, and now they're no longer talking about MWU,

[00:32:08] Speaker 01:
The statute recognizes that requirements can be modified to allow them to remain in service.

[00:32:15] Speaker 01:
And that would include, as you argued in your brief, all these retrofitting.

[00:32:20] Speaker 01:
But the cost of all that has been never factored in by FERC.

[00:32:24] Speaker 01:
How could that be sensible?

[00:32:27] Speaker 04:
I would respond to that, Your Honor, by saying that phenomenon is nothing new.

[00:32:31] Speaker 04:
And the consumer stakeholders point this out in their brief, that the idea, it is well established, they say, that configurations will change.

[00:32:40] Speaker 04:
They say this at page 19, other comments, this is at JA 753.

[00:32:47] Speaker 04:
We just don't know at this point and in the future.

[00:32:50] Speaker 01:
If FERC based its position on the notion that fossil fuel operators can

[00:32:57] Speaker 01:
retrofit, modify in substantial ways that would keep them relevant after 2040 to determine that this rate was unjust and unreasonable.

[00:33:08] Speaker 01:
Didn't it have to know how much it would cost for those plants to do that?

[00:33:14] Speaker 01:
Because it could well be that retrofitting would require an even higher rate.

[00:33:19] Speaker 01:
than what it says may result from this immortalization schedule.

[00:33:26] Speaker 04:
And again, Your Honor, I would suggest that that can be settled in the future.

[00:33:31] Speaker 01:
Well, usually when FERC says that will be settled in the future, it's because they refuse to engage in any speculation at the time.

[00:33:39] Speaker 01:
And that's the other side's argument, right?

[00:33:42] Speaker 01:
Look, right now, take it as it is.

[00:33:45] Speaker 01:
This is done on a regular, repeated basis.

[00:33:48] Speaker 01:
And if changes happen, then we'll factor it in.

[00:33:51] Speaker 01:
But that's not what FERC did.

[00:33:53] Speaker 04:
But again, Your Honor, the law doesn't require the retirements in the first instance.

[00:34:03] Speaker 04:
And if they are permitted, I point out as well, that if they are permitted to continue operation, as the market monitor suggested, to meet reliability.

[00:34:12] Speaker 01:
But the law requires certain targets be met, correct?

[00:34:16] Speaker 04:
It does.

[00:34:17] Speaker 04:
It does.

[00:34:17] Speaker 04:
It requires the commission

[00:34:19] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to.

[00:34:21] Speaker 04:
It requires the commission to adopt a program to meet those requirements with reliability concerns in mind.

[00:34:29] Speaker 01:
But it still has to meet the zero emissions requirement.

[00:34:33] Speaker 01:
The commission doesn't have the authority to go.

[00:34:35] Speaker 01:
We don't like the zero emission requirement.

[00:34:39] Speaker 01:
It has to establish targets that will get there and satisfy reliability.

[00:34:44] Speaker 04:
I'm not sure I can agree with that, Your Honor.

[00:34:46] Speaker 04:
I know that the law requires the establishment of a program to meet the targets that Your Honor is referring to, but it is with the reliability concerns in mind.

[00:34:58] Speaker 01:
With reliability concerns in mind, right?

[00:35:00] Speaker 04:
And we've got evidence in this record, and again, the market monitor

[00:35:04] Speaker 04:
Um, cited three studies suggesting that inside any of those studies, but it cited the market monitor, um, and it fully supports, um, fully supports the commission's finding that, that the law doesn't require, um, these facilities to retire.

[00:35:27] Speaker 02:
Anything else?

[00:35:30] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:35:32] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:35:32] Speaker 02:
Mr. Hughes, you are out of time, but you can have a minute.

[00:35:47] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:35:48] Speaker 03:
And I appreciate the court's indulgence, but I think the court well understands the issues, and I wish not to repeat myself.

[00:35:53] Speaker 03:
So I'd be happy to answer any questions the court may have.

[00:35:58] Speaker 02:
Hearing none.

[00:36:00] Speaker 02:
No, okay.

[00:36:01] Speaker 02:
Hearing none, the case is submitted.

[00:36:03] Speaker 02:
Thank you both.