NorthWestern fails a market power screen in two seasons of four, and has 60 days to show why FERC should not revoke its market based rate authority
595.4 megawatts in. 390 megawatts out.
That is the change NorthWestern Corporation reported to federal regulators on 30 April, covering capacity it acquired on 1 January in the balancing authority area the order calls NorthWestern Energy, or NWMT. Netted against new long-term sales, it comes to a cumulative increase of 205.4 MW of uncommitted capacity. The company's own market power analyses came with it, and those are what opened a proceeding.
By its own account NorthWestern clears both of the Commission's indicative screens in summer and fall. In winter and spring it fails one of them, the wholesale market share screen.
What a failed screen does
It does not decide anything. Under the Commission's rules a screen failure establishes a rebuttable presumption of horizontal market power, and NorthWestern filed delivered price test analyses intended to rebut it.
The Commission declined to wait for that. Citing Order No. 697, it wrote that sellers submitting evidence of this kind should not expect it to postpone opening a section 206 investigation while the supplemental material is examined, because opening one is what establishes refund protection for customers in the meantime.
So the proceeding exists to answer a question, not to announce an answer. The order is explicit that its purpose is to determine whether NorthWestern may continue to charge market based rates in that area while the Commission evaluates the company's own analyses.
Three doors, 60 days
Within 60 days of issuance, which puts it at 6 October, the company is directed to do one of three things.
Show cause why the Commission should not revoke its market based rate authority in the NWMT area. Or file a mitigation proposal tailored to its circumstances that would eliminate the ability to exercise market power. Or tell the Commission it will adopt the default cost based rates, or propose other cost based rates and file cost support for them. The order also says it may put forward alternative evidence, naming historical sales and transmission data.
The two documents give different deadlines to intervene
Anyone wanting to be heard should note a conflict on the face of the record.
The order directs interested persons to file a notice of intervention or a motion to intervene under Rule 214 within 30 days of the date of issuance, which is 6 September. The notice the Secretary filed for the Federal Register on Tuesday says 21 days, which is 28 August. Both documents are dated 7 August and both cite the same rule. This publication takes no view on which governs.
The refund date, and a deadline that is not an estimate
Section 206(b) allows a refund effective date no earlier than the publication of the Commission's notice of intention and no later than five months after it. The Commission says it has historically tended to take the earliest date allowed in order to give maximum protection to customers, and took it here. That is the Federal Register publication date, which the notice footer gives as 12 August.
One line near the end repays checking. The order says the Commission expects to render a decision by 3 February 2027, which reads as a forecast. It is not one. Section 206 requires the Commission to explain itself and give a best estimate if no final decision has been reached within 180 days of institution, and 180 days from 7 August is 3 February.
The order was issued before Chairman Laura V. Swett and Commissioners David Rosner, Lindsay S. See, Judy W. Chang and David LaCerte.
