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. TC Ravenswood, LLC v. FERC
   No. 12-1008 (D.C. Cir. filed 1/6/2012)
   
Updates to the demand curve rates for the installed capacity (ICAP) market administered by the New York ISO. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 134 FERC ¶ 61,058 (2011), orders on reh’g, 134 FERC ¶ 61,178 (2011), 135 FERC ¶ 61,002 , and 137 FERC ¶ 61,218 (2011).
FERC Docket No. ER11-2224


2. Continental Airlines, Inc., et al. v. FERC and United States of America
   No. 11-1479, et al. (D.C. Cir. filed 12/27/2011 and later)
   
Opinion, after hearing and ALJ initial decision, addressing reasonableness of increased rates for shipment on SFPP’s West Line; various cost of service rate issues. SFPP, L.P., Opinion 511, 134 FERC ¶ 61,121 (2011), order on reh’g and compl., Opinion 511-A, 137 FERC ¶ 61,220 (2011).
FERC Docket No. IS08-390


3. Electric Power Supply Ass’n, et al. v. FERC
   No. 11-1486, et al. (D.C. Cir. filed 12/23/2011 and later)
   
Regulations requiring that demand response provider, participating in an organized wholesale energy market, be compensated at the market (locational marginal) price, when dispatch of demand response resource is cost-effective and can balance supply and demand. Demand Response Compensation in Organized Wholesale Energy Markets, Order No. 745, 76 Fed. Reg. 16,658 (2011), 134 FERC ¶ 61,187 (2011), order on reh’g & clar., 137 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2011).
FERC Docket No. RM10-17


4. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. FERC
   D.C. Cir. No. 11-1484 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/22/2011)
   
Denial of application to abandon jointly-owned facilities – the Matagorda Offshore Pipeline System -- and services. Northern Natural Gas Co., 135 FERC ¶ 61,048 (2011), reh’g denied, 137 FERC ¶ 61,091 (2011).
FERC Docket No. CP10-82


5. Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District v. FERC
   No. 11-9583 (10th Cir. filed 12/19/2011)
   
Denial of application to sell, lease or otherwise remove project lands within the licensed boundary of the Stagecoach Project on the Yampa River in Routt County, Colorado. Upper Yampa Water Conservation District, 136 FERC ¶ 62,217 (2011), reh’g denied, 137 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2011).
FERC Docket No. P-9202


6. The Empire District Electric Co., et al. v. FERC
   No. 11-3715 (8th Cir. filed 12/13/2011)
   
Order accepting Southwest Power Pool’s Highway/Byway method of cost allocation.  Southwest Power Pool, Inc., 131 FERC ¶ 61,252 (2010), order on reh’g, 137 FERC ¶ 61,075 (2011).
FERC Docket No. ER10-1069


7. Brian Hunter v. FERC
   No. 11-1477 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/12/2011)
   
Order affirming ALJ’s initial decision after hearing, and ordering payment of $30 million civil penalty, for Brian Hunter’s trading of natural gas futures contracts having a direct effect on the price of natural gas, in violation of 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, 135 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2011), reh’g denied, 137 FERC ¶ 61,146 (2011).
FERC Docket No. IN07-26


8. Southern California Edison Co. v. FERC
   No. 11-1471 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/5/2011)
   
Order approving a base return on equity of 9.54 percent for three of Southern California Edison’s transmission projects.  Southern California Edison Co., 131 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2010), order on reh’g and clar., 137 FERC ¶ 61,016 (2011).
FERC Docket No. ER08-375, et al.


9. New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, et al. v. FERC
   Nos. 11-4245, et al. (3rd Cir. filed 11/25/2011 and later)
   
Acceptance of PJM’s Minimum Offer Price Rule, imposing a minimum offer screen to determine whether an offer from a new resource is competitive, and designed to ensure that all new resources are offered on a competitive basis without exercise of market power.  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al., 135 FERC ¶ 61,022 (2011), order on compl. and reh’g,137 FERC ¶ 61,145 (2011).
FERC Docket No. ER11-2875, et al.


10. City of Anaheim, Cal., et al. v. FERC
    No. 11-1442 (D.C. Cir. filed 11/14/2011)
    
Order characterizing South of Lugo Transmission Path as a zonal, rather than local, constraint, spreading costs to all utilities in the SP-15 zone, not just to Southern California Edison, but also to municipals.  California Indep. System Operator Corp.; Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. California ISO, 121 FERC ¶ 61,193 (2007), reh’g denied, 136 FERC ¶ 61,197 (2011).
FERC Docket No. ER04-835, et al.


11. Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., et al. v. FERC
    No. 11-1425, et al. (D.C. Cir. filed 10/31/2011 and later)
    
Rate design to address the problem of rate pancaking across the Midwest ISO-PJM seam; development and implementation of Seams Elimination Cost Adjustment (SECA).  Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, LLC, et al., 131 FERC ¶ 61,173 (2010), reh’g denied, 136 FERC ¶ 61,244 (2011).
FERC Docket No. ER05-6, et al.


12. New England Power Generators Ass’n, Inc. v. FERC
    No. 11-1422 (D.C. Cir. filed 10/31/2011)
    
Order on remand from Me. Pub. Utils. Comm’n v. FERC, 625 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2010), concerning two Mobile-Sierra issues reserved for decision: (1) whether auction results arising from a contested settlement approved by the Commission, establishing the Forward Capacity Market in New England, are tariff rates, not contract rates; and (2) if not contract rates, whether the Commission has discretion to approve a settlement provision imposing a more stringent (public interest) application of the statutory just and reasonable standard of review. Devon Power LLC, 134 FERC ¶ 61,208 (2011), reh’g denied, 137 FERC ¶ 61,073 (2011).
FERC Docket No. ER03-563


13. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, et al. v. FERC
    Nos. 11-3421, et al. (7th Cir. filed 10/27/11 and later)
    
Conditional acceptance of revisions to Midwest ISO tariff, finding that Multi Value Project (MVP) transmission planning and cost allocation methodology reasonably would identify projects that provide regional benefits and allocate the costs of those projects among regional beneficiaries. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 133 FERC ¶ 61,221 (2010), order on reh’g, 137 FERC ¶ 61,074 (2011).
FERC Docket No. ER10-1791


14. Big Bog Energy, LP, et al. v. FERC
    No. 11-1345 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/23/2011)
    
Determinations not to allow Dispatchable Intermittent Resources to revert back to Intermittent Resource status, and involving real-time revenue sufficiency guarantee charges imposed by the Midwest ISO. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 134 FERC ¶ 61,141 (2011), reh’g denied, 136 FERC ¶ 61,100 (2011).
FERC Docket No. ER11-1991


15. PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. FERC
    No. 11-1341 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/23/2011)
    
Dismissal of PPL complaint regarding PJM’s modeling of outages of two months or more in its simultaneous feasibility tests for financial transmission rights and auction revenue rights; failure to model the Meadowbrook-Morrisville 500 kV construction-related transmission outage in PJM feasibility tests conducted for 2010/2011 auctions. PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, 134 FERC ¶ 61,263 (2011), reh’g denied, 136 FERC ¶ 61,060 (2011).
FERC Docket No. EL11-25


16. Green Island Power Authority v. FERC
    No. 11-3792 (2nd Cir. filed 9/19/2011)
    
Order reinstating the new license for the School Street Project to the applicant following remand in Green Island Power Authority v. FERC, 577 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2009), finding that the relicensing settlement agreement did not materially amend the license application in a manner requiring an opportunity for the public to intervene in the relicensing proceeding and that, in any event, a proffered alternative to replace the project is not a feasible alternative requiring consideration in the proceeding. Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., order on remand, 131 FERC ¶ 61,036 (2010), reh’g denied, 134 FERC ¶ 61,205 (2011), reh’g denied, 136 FERC ¶ 61,044 (2011).
FERC Docket No. P-2539


17. Kern River Gas Transmission Co. v. FERC
    No. 11-1332 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/19/2011)
    
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., Op. No. 486, 117 FERC ¶ 61,077 (2006), order on reh'g, 123 FERC ¶ 61,056 (2008), order on reh’g and compl., 129 FERC ¶ 61,240 (2009), order on reh’g and compl., 133 FERC ¶ 61,162 (2010), order on initial decision, 136 FERC ¶ 61,045 (2011).
FERC Docket No. RP04-274


18. TC Ravenswood, LLC v. FERC
    No. 11-1305 (D.C. Cir. filed 8/25/2011)
    
Acceptance in part and rejection in part of proposal by New York ISO to strengthen market power mitigation in New York City (in-city) installed capacity market. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 133 FERC ¶ 61,178 (2010), order on compl., 134 FERC ¶ 61,083 (2011), order on reh’g and clar., 136 FERC ¶ 61,077 (2011).
FERC Docket No. ER10-3043


19. Moussa I. Kourouma v. FERC
    No. 11-1283 (D.C. Cir. filed 8/12/2011)
    
Assessment of $50,000 civil penalty for submission of false information in connection with application for market-based rate authority. Moussa I. Kourouma d/b/a Quntum Energy LLC, 135 FERC ¶ 61,245 (2011).
FERC Docket No. IN11-2


20. EPIC Merchant Energy NJ/PA, LP, et al. v. FERC
    No. 11-1275 (D.C. Cir. filed 8/4/2011)
    
Dismissal of complaint, similar to earlier complaint, concerning PJM’s method for determining marginal line losses and related charges. EPIC Merchant Energy NJ/PA, LP et al. v. PJM Interconnection, 131 FERC ¶ 61,130 (2010), reh’g denied, 136 FERC ¶ 61,041 (2011).
FERC Docket No. EL10-40