skip navigation
Text Size small medium large  
 
New Petitions


Many Commission decisions are challenged or enforced in the Federal courts. The Office of the Solicitor, OGC, has independent authority to defend the Commission in court, typically the U.S. Courts of Appeals, unless the matter goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The defense normally entails preparing motions and briefs and presenting oral arguments before three-judge panels. It may also involve responding to petitions for writ of mandamus and requests to stay the underlying Commission action. At times, the Office files briefs as a "friend of the court," and in certain limited circumstances also defends the Commission or enforces its initiatives in the U.S. district courts.

  1. Brian Hunter v. FERC
    No. 10-1017 (D.C. Cir. filed 1/26/2010)

    • Latest appeal objecting to the FERC’s jurisdiction to investigate whether a natural person (Hunter) who traded natural gas futures contracts, having a direct effect on the price of natural gas, violated the FERC’s anti-market manipulation regulations under 18 C.F.R. § 1c.1, implementing section 4A of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717c-1. Brian Hunter, 130 FERC ¶ 61,030 PDF (2010) order denying reh’g).
      FERC Docket No. IN07-26
      Assigned to: Robert Kennedy
      Status: motion for expedition denied 2/17/2010


  2. County of Butte, Cal. v. FERC
    No. 09-70140 (9th Cir. filed 1/15/2010)

    • Denial of complaint that California DWR, licensee for the Oroville Project in Butte County, California, was in violation of recreation and public safety requirements of its hydroelectric license. County of Butte, Cal. v. Cal. Dept. of Water Resources, 128 FERC ¶ 61,068 PDF (2009), reh'g denied, 129 FERC ¶ 61,133 PDF (2009).
      FERC Docket No. EL09-55, et al.
      Assigned to: Kathrine Henry
      Status: briefing


  3. Turlock Irrigation District v. FERC
    No. 10-1008 (D.C. Cir. filed 1/12/2010)

    • Conditional acceptance, subject to modification, of California ISO compliance tariff filing; pricing under Market Efficiency Enhancement Agreement for resources within the Integrated Balancing Authority Area. California Indep. System Operator Corp., 126 FERC ¶ 61,207 PDF (2009), order on reh’g, 129 FERC ¶ 61,241 PDF (2009).
      FERC Docket No. ER08-1113
      Assigned to: Samuel Soopper
      Status: in abeyance; related to D.C. Cir. No. 09-1213, et al.


  4. Brookfield Energy Marketing Inc. v. FERC
    No. 09-1320 D.C. Cir. filed 12/22/2009)

    • Hearing on whether capacity importers’ submission of energy supply offers at or near the $1000/MWh price cap constituted market manipulation in violation of FPA section 222 and FERC regulations 1c.2. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut, et al. v. ISO New England, et al., 128 FERC ¶ 61,182 PDF (2009), order on reh’g, 129 FERC ¶ 61,057 PDF (2009).
      FERC Docket No. EL09-47, et al.
      Assigned to : Lona Perry
      Status: motions


  5. City of Idaho Falls, Idaho, et al. v. FERC
    No. 09-1315 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/18/2009)

    • Updated list of charges hydropower licensees must pay for their use of federal lands. Update of the FERC’s Fee Schedule for Annual Charges for the Use of Government Lands, 74 Fed. Reg. 8184 (Feb. 24, 2009) PDF, reh’g denied, 129 FERC ¶ 61,095 PDF (2009).
      FERC Docket No. RM09-6
      Assigned to: Judith Albert
      Status: awaiting schedule


  6. Western Refining Southwest, Inc., et al. v. FERC
    No. 09-60947 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/17/2009)

    • Dismissal of complaint concerning capacity release agreement not within FERC jurisdiction over oil pipeline transportation but subject to state court jurisdiction to resolve property rights under private contract. Western Refining Southwest Inc., et al. v. TEPPCO Crude Pipeline, LLC, 127 FERC ¶ 61,288 PDF (2009), reh’g denied, 129 FERC ¶ 61,053 PDF (2009).
      FERC Docket No. OR09-3
      Assigned to: Robert Kennedy
      Status: briefing


  7. Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.,et al. v. FERC
    Nos. 09-1306, et al. (D.C. Cir. filed 12/14/2009)

    • Acceptance of Schedule 2-A, revising Midwest ISO open access transmission tariff to institute zone-based compensation to transmission owners for reactive power. Midwest ISO Transmission Owners, 122 FERC ¶ 61,305 TXT (2008), reh'g denied, 129 FERC ¶ 61,041 PDF (2009).
      FERC Docket No. ER08-15
      Assigned to: Lona Perry
      Status: awaiting schedule


  8. New York Regional Interconnect, Inc. v. FERC
    No. 09-1309 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/14/2009)

    • Conditional acceptance of New York ISO transmission planning process, submitted in compliance with Order No. 890; eligibility of new transmission projects for cost allocation and recovery. New York Indep. System Operator, Inc., 125 FERC ¶ 61,068 PDF (2008), order on reh’g, 126 FERC ¶ 61,320 PDF (2009), order on reh’g, 129 FERC ¶ 61,045 PDF (2009).
      FERC Docket No. OA08-52
      Assigned to: Holly Cafer
      Status: awaiting schedule


  9. In re: Quest Energy, L.L.C., et al.
    No. 09-1302 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/8/2009)

    • Petition for a writ of mandamus, filed by Quest Energy, Integrys Energy, and Direct Energy, asking the court to order the Commission to promptly issue orders on rehearing regarding several Midwest ISO orders issued in 2003-2005 and an order on an ALJ’s initial decision issued in 2006. Those orders, concerning inter-RTO transactions between the Midwest ISO and PJM, are: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., et al., 105 FERC ¶ 61,212 PDF (2003); 109 FERC ¶ 61,168 PDF (2004); 110 FERC ¶ 61,107 PDF (2005); 111 FERC ¶ 61,409 PDF (2005); and 116 FERC ¶ 63,030 PDF (2006).
      FERC Docket No. EL02-111, et al.


  10. In re: Brian Hunter
    No. 09-1285 (D.C. Cir. filed 11/19/2009)

    • Petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the Commission has unreasonably delayed acting on Hunter’s petition for rehearing of order, Amaranth Advisors L.L.C., et al., 124 FERC ¶ 61,050 PDF (July 17, 2008), setting show cause issues for evidentiary hearing and acting on certain rehearing issues.
      FERC Docket No. IN07-26


  11. Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. FERC
    Nos. 09-1279 and 09-1280 (D.C. Cir. filed 11/12/2009)



  12. BP West Coast Products LLC v. FERC and United States of America
    Nos. 09-1271, 09-1272, and 09-1283 (D.C. Cir. filed 11/6/2009 and later)

    • Dismissal of various complaints by BP and Tesoro against SFPP and Calnev; general rate complaints, audit complaints, and index-based rate filing complaints. BP West Coast Products, LLC v. SFPP, L.P., et al., 129 FERC ¶ 61,109 PDF, 61,110 PDF & 61,114 PDF (2009).
      FERC Docket No. OR08-13, et al.


  13. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. FERC
    No. 09-1252 (D.C. Cir. filed 10/6/2009)

    • Order on remand from Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC, 513 F.3d 242 (D.C. Cir. 2008), finding that, in light of settlements, Burlington need not refund Kansas ad valorem taxes to pipelines on sales of natural gas, and that pipelines must return refunds paid back to Burlington (and cannot recover those amounts from pipeline customers). Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co. and Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., 123 FERC ¶ 61,151 PDF (2008), reh’g denied, 128 FERC ¶ 61,151 PDF (2009).
      FERC Docket No. GP99-15, et al.




  Related Topics

 



Updated: March 9, 2010