Decisions were issued on: - Personnel Security - Hydroelectric
Office of Hearings and Appeals
September 20, 2024
minute read time
Hydroelectric Appeal (HEA)
Hydroelectric Appeal; Denied
On September 20, 2024, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision denying an appeal by Puget Sound Energy (Appellant) related to the hydroelectric production incentive program authorized by Section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) determined that Appellant's hydroelectric facility was ineligible as its incentive period ended in fiscal year 2022 prior to calendar year 2023. OHA concluded that GDO's determination that Appellant's hydroelectric facility was ineligible was not arbitrary and capricious . OHA therefore denied the appeal. (OHA Case No. HEA-24-0089)
Hydroelectric Appeal; Denied
On September 20, 2024, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision denying an appeal by Sollos Energy LLC (Appellant) related to the hydroelectric production incentive program authorized by Section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) determined that Appellant's hydroelectric facility was ineligible for incentive payments under the Program. OHA concluded that GDO's determination that Appellant's hydroelectric facility was, in fact, ineligible, and that GDO's denial was not arbitrary and capricious . OHA therefore denied the appeal. (OHA Case No. HEA-24-0086)
Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)
Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption); Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)
On September 17, 2024, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual reported to the DOE Local Security Office (LSO) that he had been twice arrested and charged with criminal conduct after he had consumed alcohol. The LSO requested that the Individual be evaluated by a DOE consultant psychiatrist who diagnosed the Individual as meeting the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate . The LSO then suspended the Individual's security clearance.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined that the LSO appropriately invoked Guidelines G and J. The AJ also determined that the Individual did not put forth sufficient evidence to resolve the Guideline G and J security concerns. Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0115, Thompson III)