Legal Resources 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.
California Public Utilities Commission v. FERC
No. 13-74361 (9th Cir. filed 12/18/2013)
Denial of interlocutory appeal of ALJ’s decision not to hold FERC proceeding in abeyance, concerning recovery of wildfire costs from ratepayers, until decision in CPUC proceeding. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., 145 FERC ¶ 61,136
(2013), rejecting rehearing of decision not to hear interlocutory appeal.
FERC Docket No. ER12-2454
City of Holland, Michigan Board of Public Works v. FERC
No. 13-1306 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/16/2013)
Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Co. v. FERC and United States of America
No. 13-1305 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/13/2013)
Order granting in part complaints, alleging that Enterprise has violated a settlement by no longer accepting nominations for the transportation of jet fuel or distillates, and establishing limited hearing on the issue of damages. CHS Inc., et al. v. Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Co., LLC; Chevron Products Co. v. Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Co., LLC, 145 FERC ¶ 61,056
FERC Docket No. OR13-25, et al.
Kern River Gas Transmission Co. v. FERC
No. 13-1303 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/13/2013)
General rate case filing by Kern River; inclusion of Master Limited Partnerships in proxy group for determining rate of return, and various Period I and II rate design issues. Kern River Gas Transmission Co., Opinion No. 486, 117 FERC ¶ 61,077
(2006), on reh'g, 123 FERC ¶ 61,056 (2008), on reh’g, 129 FERC ¶ 61,240 (2009), on reh’g, 133 FERC ¶ 61,162 (2010), on initial decision, 136 FERC ¶ 61,045 (2011), on reh’g, 142 FERC ¶ 61,132 (2013).
FERC Docket No. RP04-274
St. Paul Park Refining Co. LLC v. FERC and United States of America
No. 13-1302 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/13/2013)
Order dismissing complaint that alleged that 2008 settlement, instituting a surcharge for an oil pipeline expansion project, no longer is just and reasonable. St. Paul Park Refining Co. LLC v. Enbridge Pipelines (North Dakota) LLC, 145 FERC ¶ 61,050 (2013).
FERC Docket No. OR13-28
Louisiana Public Service Commission v. FERC
No. 13-60874 (5th Cir. filed 12/10/2013)
U.S. Department of Interior v. FERC
No. 13-2439 (1st Cir. filed 11/18/2013)
Replacement of the existing wooden flashboards of Pawtucket Dam in Lowell, Mass. with an inflatable crest gate system, to reduce risk of flooding; effect on historic preservation. Boot Hydropower and Eldred L. Field Hydroelectric Trust, 143 FERC ¶ 61,048 (2013), reh’g denied, 144 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2013).
FERC Docket No. P-2790
Crescent Bar Condominium Master Ass’n and Crescent Bar Recreational Vehicle Homeowners Ass’n v. FERC
No. 13-73971(9th Cir. filed 11/15/2013)
Approval of shoreline management plan for Priest Rapids Project; determination that licensee is not required to permit private uses (including private leasing) of project lands. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant County, Wash., 143 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2013), reh'g denied, 144 FERC ¶ 61,210 (2013).
FERC Docket No. P-2114
Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FERC
No. 13-1278 (D.C. Cir. filed 11/13/2013)
Order on remand from Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FERC, 601 F.3d 581 (D.C. Cir. 2010), concerning FERC’s decision to allow MoGas Pipeline to include full purchase price of certain pipeline assets (including amount in excess of book value) in rate base, based on showing of ratepayer benefits. Missouri Interstate Gas Co., et al., 142 FERC ¶ 61,195 (2013), reh’g denied, 144 FERC ¶ 61,220 (2013).
FERC Docket No. CP06-407
New Energy Capital Partners, LLC v. FERC
No. 13-1277 (D.C. Cir. filed 11/8/2013)
Denial of late intervention in relicensing proceeding for Yadkin Hydroelectric Project in North Carolina. Alcoa Power Generating Inc., 144 FERC ¶ 61,218 (2013) (denying rehearing of May 30, 2013 notice denying late intervention).
FERC Docket No. P-2197
- California Independent System Operator Corp. v. FERC
No. 13-1251 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/16/2013)
- Turlock Irrigation District, et al. v. FERC
Nos. 13-1250 and 13-1253 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/13/2013 and later)
Determination that licensing is required for unlicensed 4.9 MW La Grange Project, on the Tuolumne River in California, because of findings based on navigability, federal lands, and post-1935 construction. Turlock Irrigation Dist. and Modesto Irrigation Dist., 141 FERC ¶ 62,211 (2012), order on reh’g and stay, 144 FERC ¶ 61,051 (2013).
FERC Docket No. UL11-1
Tesoro Alaska Co. and Anadarko Petroleum Co. v. FERC and United States of America
Nos. 13-1248 and 13-1249 (D.C. Cir. No. filed 9/13/2013)
Approval of contested settlement, addressing cost pooling among owners of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., et al., 144 FERC ¶ 61,025 (2013).
FERC Docket No. IS09-348, et al.
DC Energy, LLC, et al. v. FERC
No. 13-1240 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/9/2013)
Denial of complaint opposing PJM’s plan to retroactively bill complainants for balancing operating reserve charges that were inappropriately avoided by reporting to PJM certain DC Energy transactions as internal bilateral transactions under PJM tariff. DC Energy, LLC, et al. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 138 FERC ¶ 61,165 (2012), reh’g denied, 144 FERC ¶ 61,024 (2013).
FERC Docket No. EL12-8