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. 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.



2. 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



3. 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.



4. 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.



5. 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.



6. American Public Power Ass’n, et al. v. FERC
   No. 09-1243 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/14/2009)
   
“Protective” appeal of rule improving competitiveness of organized wholesale electric markets by removing barriers to demand response. Wholesale Competition in Regions with Organized Electric Markets, Order No. 719, 73 Fed. Reg. 64,100, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,281 (2008), order on reh’g, Order No. 719-A, 74 Fed. Reg. 37,776, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,292 (2009), reh’g pending.
FERC Docket No. RM07-19



7. Braintree Electric Light Dept., et al. v. FERC
   No. 09-1231 (D.C. Cir. filed 8/31/2009)
   
Allocation of costs associated with ISO New England’s operation of Canal 1 and 2 generating units out of economic merit. Braintree Electric Light. Dept., et al. v. ISO New England, Inc., 124 FERC ¶ 61,061 (2008), order on reh’g, 128 FERC ¶ 61,008 (2009).
FERC Docket No. EL08-48



8. Fishermen Interested in Safe Hydrokinetics, et al. v. FERC
   No. 09-72920 (9th Cir. filed 9/14/2009)
   
Preliminary permit to study proposed hydrokinetic Green Wave Mendocino Project, to be located in Pacific Ocean off the coast of Mendocino County, CA; whether FPA requires the Commission to develop a comprehensive plan for waters off the coast of CA, OR and WA. Green Wave Energy Solutions, LLC, 127 FERC ¶ 62,093 (2009), reh'g denied, 128 FERC ¶ 61,034 (2009).
FERC Docket No. P-13053



9. The Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, et al. v. FERC
   Nos. 09-2052, et al. (4th Cir. filed 9/14/2009)
   
Approval of special surcharge to recover Dominion Virginia Power’s share of RTO (PJM) start-up and administrative costs. Virginia Elec. and Power Co., 125 FERC ¶ 61,391 (2008), order on reh’g, 128 FERC ¶ 61,026 (2009).
FERC Docket No. ER08-1540



10. Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC , et al. v. FERC and United States of America Nos. 09-1236, et al. (D.C. Cir. filed 9/4/2009 and later)
    
Valuation of West Coast Heavy Distillate cut of Trans Alaska Pipeline System crude oil. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., et al., 125 FERC ¶ 61,254 (2008), reh’g denied, 128 FERC ¶ 61,169 (2009).
FERC Docket No. OR06-10



11. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. FERC and United States of America
    No. 09-1228 (D.C. Cir. filed 8/28/2009)
    
Proposed changes to the interstate rates for transportation of crude oil on various pipelines’ shares of the capacity of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., et al., 127 FERC ¶ 61,316 (2009), reh’g pending.
FERC Docket No. IS09-348



12. NRG Power Marketing LLC, et al. v. FERC
    No. 09-1226 (D.C. Cir. filed 8/27/2009)
    
Conditional acceptance of tariff revisions implementing a second level of interconnection service, consistent with FERC Order No. 2003, with a deliverability requirement that earlier was conceptually approved. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., and New York Transmission Owners, 126 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2009), order on reh’g, clar. & compl., 127 FERC ¶ 61,318 (2009).
FERC Docket No. ER04-449



13. Maryland Public Service Comm'n and New Jersey Board of Public Utils. v. FERC
    No. 09-1924 (4th Cir. filed 8/14/2009)
    
Denial of complaint regarding prices set for capacity in PJM's Reliability Pricing Model for delivery years governed by completed RPM auctions. Maryland Pub. Serv. Comm'n, et al. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 124 FERC ¶ 61,276 (2008), reh'g denied, 127 FERC ¶ 61,274 (2009).
FERC Docket No. EL08-67



14. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General for the State of Conn. and Conn. Office of Consumer Counsel v. FERC
    No. 09-1220 (D.C. Cir. filed 8/12/2009)
    
ISO-NE's collection of administrative costs for calendar year 2009, including executive compensation and employee staffing levels and external affairs activities. ISO New England, Inc., 125 FERC ¶ 61,392 (2008), reh'g denied, 127 FERC ¶ 61,254 (2009).
FERC Docket No. ER09-197



15. Transmission Agency of Northern California, et al. v. FERC
    Nos. 09-1213, et al. (D.C. Cir. filed 8/5/2009 and later)
    
Conditional acceptance of proposed tariff revisions submitted by the California ISO to establish an Integrated Balancing Authority Area, modeling and pricing export and import transactions with the SMUD and Turlock balancing authority areas. California Independent System Operator Corp., 124 FERC ¶ 61,271 (2008), order on reh'g & clar., 128 FERC ¶ 61,103 (2009).
FERC Docket No. ER08-1113



16. Murray Energy Corp, et al. v. FERC
    No. 09-1207 (D.C. Cir. filed 7/20/2009)
    
Authorization to commence construction of 6-mile stretch of Rockies Express-East Pipeline, crossing lands underlain by coal reserves and mined areas controlled by the Murray Companies. Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC, 128 FERC ¶ 61,045 (2009), order on rehearing of 3/19/09 unpublished letter order.
FERC Docket No. CP07-208



17. ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, et al. v. FERC and United States of America
    No. 09-1215, et al. (D.C. Cir. filed 8/7/2009 and later)
    
Order affirming ALJ after hearing, concerning the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) Carriers' 2005 and 2006 interstate rate filings; finding that proposed rates are not just and reasonable, and ordering refunds. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., et al., Opinion No. 502, 123 FERC ¶ 61,287 (2008), order on reh'g & comp., 125 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2008), order on reh'g, 127 FERC ¶ 61,317 (2009).
FERC Docket No. IS05-82, et al.