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.
Bonneville Power Admin., et al. v. FERC
No. 13-72917, et al. (9th Cir. filed 8/21/2013)
Order granting petition filed by owners of wind facilities that Bonneville’s Redispatch Policy offers non-comparable transmission service that favors federal hydroelectric resources. Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., et al. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 137 FERC ¶ 61,185 (2011), reh’g denied, 141 FERC ¶ 61,233 (2012), reh’g denied, 143 FERC ¶ 61,274 (2013).
FERC Docket No. ER11-4336
TC Offshore L.L.C. v. FERC
No. 13-1223 (D.C. Cir. filed 8/6/2013)
Abandonment proceeding to transfer offshore pipeline facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, from ANR to subsidiary TC Offshore. ANR Pipeline Co. and TC Offshore LLC, 139 FERC ¶ 61,238 (2012), order on reh’g & clar., 140 FERC ¶ 61,260 (2012), order on reh’g, 143 FERC ¶ 61,225 (2013).
FERC Docket No. CP11-543, et al.
People of the State of California, et al. v. FERC
No. 13-72653 (9th Cir. filed 7/29/2013)
Approval of contested settlement , resolving all issues between
TransCanada Energy and City of Seattle arising out of Pacific Northwest
refund proceeding. Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. All Jurisdictional Sellers of Energy and/or Capacity at Wholesale into Electric Energy and/or
Capacity Markets in the Pacific Northwest, 143 FERC ¶ 61,013 (2013), reh’g denied, 144 FERC ¶ 61,029 (2013).
FERC Docket No. EL01-10
Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community, Inc., et al. v. FERC
No. 13-1219 (D.C. Cir. filed 7/12/2013)
Pioneer Trail Wind Farm, LLC and Settlers Trail Wind Farm, LLC v. FERC
No. 13-2326 (7th Cir. filed 6/17/2013)
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., LP v. FERC
No. 13-1197 (D.C. Cir. filed 6/14/2013)
People of the State of New York and the Pub. Serv. Comm’n of New York v. FERC
No. 13-2316 (2nd Cir. filed 6/12/2013)
Approval of modifications to definition of “bulk electric system” developed by NERC, and approval of procedures to add or remove facilities from the bulk electric system on a case-by-case basis. Revision to Electric Reliability Organization Definition of Bulk Electric System and Rules of Procedure, Order No. 773, 141 FERC ¶ 61,236 (2012), order on reh’g and clar., 143 FERC ¶ 61,053
FERC Docket No. RM12-6, et al.
Michigan Electric Transmission Co., LLC v. FERC
No. 13-1185 (D.C. Cir. filed 5/17/2013)
Cancellation of interconnection agreement between Consumers Energy and Midland Cogeneration, entered into in 1988 but not filed until 2010; hearing on time-value refunds and effective date for cancellation. Consumers Energy Co., 139 FERC ¶ 61,014 (2012), order on reh’g, 142 FERC ¶ 61,193 (2013).
FERC Docket No. ER12-420
- Midland Power Cooperative and National Rural Electric Cooperative Ass’n v. FERC
No. 13-1184 (D.C. Cir. filed 5/17/2013)
Finding that Midland’s disconnection of service to the qualifying wind facility owned and operated by the Sweckers, over disagreement as to Midland’s avoided costs for purchasing the output of the facility, is inconsistent with Midland’s obligations under PURPA. Gregory and Beverly Swecker v. Midland Power Coop., 137 FERC ¶ 61,200 (2011), reh’g denied, 142 FERC ¶ 61,207 (2013).
FERC Docket No. EL11-39
Nebraska Public Power District v. FERC
No. 13-1181 (D.C. Cir. filed 5/17/2013)
Louisiana Public Service Commission v. FERC
No. 13-1155 (D.C. Cir. filed 5/2/2013)
Exercise of discretion not to order refunds for the 15-month period following LPSC complaint, despite FERC finding of improper allocation of costs among Entergy operating companies (improper inclusion of interruptible load in Entergy’s calculation of peak load responsibility). Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n and the City of New Orleans v. Entergy Corp., 129 FERC ¶ 61,237 (2009), amended, 132 FERC ¶ 61,133 (2010), reh’g granted in part, 135 FERC ¶ 61,218 (2011), reh’g denied, 142 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2013).
FERC Docket No. EL00-66, et al.