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 (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 (2009), reh'g denied, 129 FERC ¶ 61,133 (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 (2009), order on reh’g, 129 FERC ¶ 61,241 (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 (2009), order on reh’g, 129 FERC ¶ 61,057 (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) , reh’g denied, 129 FERC ¶ 61,095 (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 (2009), reh’g denied, 129 FERC ¶ 61,053 (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 (2008), reh'g denied, 129 FERC ¶ 61,041 (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 (2008), order on reh’g, 126 FERC ¶ 61,320 (2009), order on reh’g, 129 FERC ¶ 61,045 (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 (2003); 109 FERC ¶ 61,168 (2004); 110 FERC ¶ 61,107 (2005); 111 FERC ¶ 61,409 (2005); and 116 FERC ¶ 63,030 (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 (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)
    
Approval of settlements of disputes among California Parties, Puget Sound Energy, and AES Placerita. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services, et al., 128 FERC ¶ 61,002 (2009), reh’g denied, 128 FERC ¶ 61,241 (2009); 128 FERC ¶ 61,004 (2009), reh’g denied, 128 FERC ¶ 61,243 (2009).
FERC Docket No. EL00-95, et al.



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 , 61,110 & 61,114 (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 (2008), reh’g denied, 128 FERC ¶ 61,151 (2009).
FERC Docket No. GP99-15, et al.