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. Illinois Commerce Commission, et al. v. FERC
   Nos. 13-1674, et al. (7th Cir. filed 3/29/2013 and later)
   Order on remand from Illinois Commerce Comm’n v. FERC, 576 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2009), regarding cost allocation for transmission facilities that operate at or above 500 kV; affirmation of region-wide, postage stamp allocation for covered facilities planned and approved before Feb. 1, 2013. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 138 FERC ¶ 61,230 (2012), on reh’g, 142 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2013).
   FERC Docket No. EL05-121
   


2. FERC v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission
   No. 1:13-cv-141 (D. Idaho filed 3/22/2013)
   
   Complaint filed in U.S. district court against the Idaho Commission seeking injunctive and other relief in light of FERC orders announcing intent to enforce Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 and related regulations permitting a qualifying facility to sell energy pursuant to a legally enforceable obligation. Murphy Flat Power, LLC 141 FERC ¶ 61,145 (2012), Grouse Creek Wind Park, LLC, 142 FERC ¶ 61,187 (2013).
   Docket No. EL12-108, et al.
   


3. Smith Lake Improvement and Stakeholders Ass’n v. FERC
   No. 13-1074 (D.C. Cir. filed 3/18/2013)
   
   Relicensing of the Warrior River Hydroelectric Project, on the Black Warrior River in Alabama; various issues concerning surface elevation of reservoir. Alabama Power Co., 130 FERC ¶ 62,271 (2010), reh’g denied, 141 FERC ¶ 61,127 (2012), reh’g rejected, 142 FERC ¶ 61,039 (2013).
   Docket No. P-2165.
   


4. Louisiana Public Service Commission v. FERC
   Nos. 13-60140 and 13-60141 (5th Cir. filed 3/4/2013)
   
Bandwidth calculations and remedies to keep Entergy companies in rough equalization under System Agreement; consideration of depreciation inputs and costs. Entergy Services, Inc., Op. No. 514, 137 FERC ¶ 61,029 (2011), reh’g denied,. Op. No. 514-A 142 FERC ¶ 61,013 (2013); Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Entergy Corp., et al., 128 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2009), reh’g denied, 137 FERC ¶ 61,030 (2011), on reh’g, 142 FERC ¶ 61,012 (2013).
FERC Docket No. ER08-1056, et al.



5. Kern River Gas Transmission Co. v. FERC
   No. 13-1049 (D.C. Cir. filed 3/4/2013)
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., Op No. 486. 117 FERC ¶ 61,077 (2006), on reh'g., 123 FERC ¶ 61,056 (2008), on reh’g & compl., 129 FERC ¶ 61,240 (2009), on reh’g and compl., 133 FERC ¶ 61,162 (2010), on initial decision 136 FERC ¶ 61,045 (2011), 142 FERC ¶ 61,132 (2013).
Docket No. RP04-274



6. Southwestern Power Administration, et al. v. FERC
   No. 13-1033 (D.C. Cir. filed 2/15/2013)
   
   Approval of imposition of a monetary penalty, as consistent with section 215 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 824o, on a federal entity that violates a mandatory Reliability Standard.
   North American Electric Reliability Corp., 140 FERC ¶ 61,048 (2012), reh’g denied, 141 FERC ¶ 61,242 (2012).
   FERC Docket No. NP11-238
   


7. Northwest Requirements Utilities, et al. v. FERC
   Nos. 13-70391, et al. (9th Cir. filed 2/1/2013 and later)
   
   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 Administration, 137 FERC ¶ 61,185 (2011), reh’g denied, 141 FERC ¶ 61,233 (2012).
   FERC Docket No. EL11-44


8. Delaware Riverkeeper Network, et al. v. FERC
   No. 13-1015 and 13-1016 (D.C. Cir. filed 1/22/2013 and later)
   
   Certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. to upgrade existing pipeline system with 40 miles of pipeline looping. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 139 FERC ¶ 61,161 (2012), on reh’g, 142 FERC ¶ 61,025 (2013).
   FERC Docket No. CP11-161


9. TNA Merchant Projects, Inc. v. FERC
   No. 13-1008 (D.C. Cir. filed 1/14/2013)
   
   Rates for reactive power service to Bonneville Power Administration; continued treatment (following court remand) of filing as a rate change subject to suspension and refund. Chehalis Power Generating L.P., 134 FERC ¶ 61,112 (2011), reh’g denied, 141 FERC ¶ 61,116 (2012).
   FERC Docket No. ER05-1056


10. Idaho Power Co., et al. v. FERC
    No. 13-1002 (D.C. Cir. filed 1/8/2013)
    
    Conditional approval of settlement, approving Western energy crisis claims, between Idaho Power, IDACORP Energy, and the City of Tacoma, Wash. 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, 139 FERC ¶ 61,209 (2012), on reh’g, 141 FERC ¶ 61,148 (2012).
    FERC Docket No. EL01-10