Representative Matters

The following are some examples of the types of contracts with which Ms. McGoldrick has assisted clients:

  • Asset purchase agreements, and related joint ownership and management agreements, in connection with clients’ purchases of undivided interests in an existing combustion turbine unit.
  • An agreement for a long-term (25-year) purchase of firm capacity and energy by a group of non-profit utilities (electrical districts, irrigation districts, cooperatives, tribal utilities, and municipal utilities) in Arizona, and an associated agreement among the purchasing entities to coordinate their participation in the transaction with the seller.
  • Agreements for the joint construction, ownership and operation of a two-unit coal-fired plant located in the Midwest ISO footprint, and a new coal-fired unit located in the Southwest Power Pool footprint.
  • Agreements for purchases of various types of renewable or other environmentally friendly power (wind, biomass, landfill gas, solar).
  • Numerous other purchased-power agreements (unit power, system power, full-requirements, fixed quantities, cost-based formula rates, market rates).
  • Contracts to purchase energy-management services, under which the counterparty takes responsibility to manage and/or help optimize the value of the client’s energy assets and its interaction with one or more RTOs.
  • Locational exchange agreements that permit both the client and the counterparty to make more advantageous use of, or avoid constraints to their use of, their respective energy assets.
  • Numerous EEI Master Agreements and similar standardized contracts, for clients seeking both to sell and to purchase energy.
  • Agreements for clients to receive compensation for their transmission facilities, including through joint pricing zones in RTOs.

The following are some examples of the types of litigation in which Ms. McGoldrick has assisted clients:

  • Margaret assisted the Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS) in FERC rulemaking proceedings regarding changes to the pro forma open access transmission tariff.  FERC Order No. 890 and orders on rehearing.
  • On behalf of a group of irrigation districts, Margaret coordinated with other intervenors in their successful challenge to a transmission rate formula proposed by Idaho Power Company.  Idaho Power Co., 126 FERC ¶ 61,044 (2009).
  • Margaret represented a group of complainants (Midwest TDUs) in a successful effort to modify allocation of MISO’s make-whole payments to certain generators, to better reflect cost-causation.  Ameren Services Co. v. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 125 FERC ¶ 61,161 (2008).
  • Thanks to her representation, in summary disposition FERC upheld the City of Independence’s interpretation regarding cost-based nature of a disputed contract.  Kansas City Power & Light Co., 107 FERC ¶ 61,304 (2004).
  • She won an Initial Decision for her client after a hearing granting a cooperative client’s request for credits against its transmission charges to compensate for its ownership of integrated transmission facilities.  The case was settled on the basis of the Initial Decision.  Ameren Services Co., 106 FERC ¶ 63,001 (2004).
  • In a seminal case regarding the proper allocation of costs for facilities used in wholesale distribution service, based on evidence at hearing, FERC granted her municipal clients’ complaint seeking direct assignment of costs of non-integrated radial facilities serving their distribution systems.  Mansfield Municipal Electric Department v. New England Power Co., 94 FERC ¶ 63,023, aff’d, 97 FERC ¶ 61,134 (2001).

Resources