NEPGA filed the a response to a “notice of further developments” FERC filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on September 19 in NEPGA’s appeal of the 2014 and 2015 FERC orders denying NEPGA relief from the Peak Energy Rent (PER) Adjustment (D.C. Cir. Nos. 16-1023 and 16-1024). In its notice, FERC explains to the Court that Administrative Law Judge H. Peter Young recently certified an uncontested joint offer of settlement filed by NEPGA to resolve the Strike Price increase FERC ordered for settlement and hearing procedures in its order on NEPGA’s 2016 PER Adjustment complaint (2016 Complaint).  FERC opines, in part, that though the settlement, if approved, “would [not] entirely moot this appeal,” it would “moot relief for the specified period (most of Capacity Year 7 and all of Capacity Year 8),” presumably referring to the FCA 7 and FCA 8 Capacity Commitment Periods.  In its response, NEPGA clarifies that the settlement, if approved, does not moot the legal issues NEPGA raises on appeal.  NEPGA also explains to the Court that FERC has now agreed (in its order on NEPGA’s 2016 Complaint) that the 2014 Reserve Constraint Penalty Factor (RCPF) increases rendered the PER Adjustment unjust and unreasonable, and that NEPGA filed its prior PER Adjustment complaint (in 2014) on the same day on which the RCPF increases went into effect (December 3, 2014).  It is the FERC orders on NEPGA’s 2014 PER Adjustment complaint that NEPGA, in part, challenges on appeal.  NEPGA concludes that though FERC was untimely in recognizing that the RCPF increases rendered capacity rates unjust and unreasonable, it has confirmed that they were likewise unjust and unreasonable when NEPGA filed its prior PER Adjustment complaint in 2014.