192 FERC ¶ 63,010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

ORDER OF CHIEF JUDGE DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR
INTERIM IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT RATE

(Issued August 12, 2025)

1. On August 6, 2025, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (Central Hudson)
filed a Motion for Authorization to Implement Settlement Rate on an Interim Basis, and
Request for Waivers and for Expedited Treatment (Motion). The Motion relates to a
concurrently filed Offer of Settlement (Settlement), which is intended to resolve all issues
set for hearing in this proceeding.1 Central Hudson requests August 6, 2025, as the
interim effective date for “the settlement rate that has been offered in this proceeding”
(Settlement Rate).2

2. The Motion requests waiver of the answer period.3 Because Central Hudson
represents that the Motion is unopposed,4 the answer period is hereby WAIVED pursuant
to Rule 213(d).5

1 Motion at 3; Offer of Settlement, Docket No. ER24-1434-002, at pmbl. (Aug. 6, 2025).

2 Motion at 1.

3 Id. at 1, 4-5.

4 Id. at 4.

 5 18 C.F.R. § 385.213(d)(1) (2024) (requiring a 15-day answer period for motions
“unless otherwise ordered”); see also 18 C.F.R. § 385.213(d)(1)(i) (stating that answers
to a motion to shorten the time period for action must be made within 5 days “unless
otherwise ordered”).

Docket No. ER24-1434-003 - 2 -

I. Governing Law

3. The Commission has authorized the Chief Administrative Law Judge (Chief
Judge) to adjudicate “uncontested motions that would result in lower interim settlement
rates, pending Commission action on settlement agreements.”6 Such motions must
demonstrate an overall rate reduction to be granted.7 If some component rates have
increased, “the motion should clearly demonstrate that the overall effect of all changed
components or inputs results in a lower interim rate.”8 Given the limitations on the Chief
Judge’s delegated authority in this area, filers may always motion the Commission
directly if seeking the imposition of a higher interim settlement rate.9

II. Discussion

4. The Motion is deficient and does not provide adequate information to determine
the overall rate impact of implementing the requested Settlement Rate. While Central
Hudson highlights the Settlement’s removal of “Energy Efficiency and Production
Costs,”10 the redlined tariff records appended to the Motion make no reference to those
costs.11 Instead, the tariff records show increases to certain fixed charges and decreases

6 18 C.F.R. § 375.307(a)(1)(iv), (a)(7)(v).

 7 Trailblazer Pipeline Co., 169 FERC ¶ 63,008, at P 4 (2019) (referencing certain
rate increases but granting motion given the “significant overall reduction in rates and
total revenues for Trailblazer”); S. Nat. Gas Co., 190 FERC ¶ 63,007, at P 3 (2025)
(finding “an overall rate reduction” and granting motion).

 8 Chief Administrative Law Judge’s Notices to the Public, Motions to Place
Interim Settlement Rates into Effect, Docket No. AD20-12-000, at P 4 (June 15, 2022)
(stating also that “[i]f the appropriate analysis is not provided, the filing party may be
directed to supplement their filing”); see also Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 177
FERC ¶ 63,013, at PP 4-5 (2021) (granting renewed motion that included supplemental
information, including “an appendix that demonstrates that an overall rate decrease
results from the combination of the decreased and increased rate components”).

 9 See Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 46 FERC ¶ 61,186, at 2 (1989) (finding that
“no party objects to the increase in the DMQ-1 Rate Schedule so the Commission will
permit these interim settlement rates to take effect as proposed”).

10 Motion at 3.

11 Id. app. B.

Docket No. ER24-1434-003 - 3 -

to certain contract demand and usage rates.12 Central Hudson’s cursory contention that
the Settlement constitutes a “reduced rate”13 is insufficient to make the required finding
that the sought relief would “result in lower interim settlement rates.”14 Without further
documentation, explanation, or analysis regarding the impact of the counteracting rate
changes, an insufficient record exists to grant the Motion and authorize interim
implementation of the Settlement Rate.15

5. Accordingly, the requested interim Settlement Rate is NOT accepted,16 and the
Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Andrew Satten

Chief Administrative Law Judge

12 See id. (showing in Rate Schedule 21, section 6.21.6 increases to minimum monthly charges and decreases to contract demand amounts).

13 Motion at 3-4.

14 18 C.F.R. § 375.307(a)(1)(iv).

 15 See Midwestern Gas Transmission Co., 177 FERC ¶ 63,030, at PP 2-3 (2021)
(holding that “insufficient record evidence exists to grant the Motion and authorize the
interim implementation of the revised tariff sheets”).

 16 New York Independent System Operator, Inc., NYISO Tariffs, NYISO OATT,

6.21 OATT Schedule 21 (3.0.0).