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.
Air Transport Ass’n of America v. FERC and United States
No. 15-1421 (D.C. Cir. filed 11/16/2015)
People of the State of California, et al. v. FERC
No. 15-73466 (9th Cir. filed 11/13/2015)
Order in California Refund Proceeding, following evidentiary hearing and ALJ Initial Decision, finding that certain sellers during California energy crisis engaged in tariff violations impacting the market clearing price, and directing disgorgement of amounts received above the marginal cost-based proxy price. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Sellers of Energy, et al., Opinion No. 536, 149 FERC ¶ 61,116 (2014), order on reh’g, 153 FERC ¶ 61,144 (2015).
FERC Docket No. EL00-95, et al.
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC v. FERC
No. 15-1355 (D.C. Cir. filed 10/19/2015)
- El Paso Natural Gas Co., L.L.C. v. FERC
No. 15-1323 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/11/2015)
- TNA Merchant Projects, Inc. v. FERC
No. 15-1320 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/10/2015)
Order on remand, concerning rates for reactive power service to Bonneville Power Administration; continued treatment of filing as a rate change subject to suspension and refund. Chehalis Power Generating, L.P., 145 FERC ¶ 61,052 (2013), order on reh’g, 152 FERC ¶ 61,050
FERC Docket No. ER05-1056
New Energy Capital Partners, LLC v. FERC
D.C. Cir. No. 15-1307 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/3/2015)
Denial of late intervention, and rejection of motion to reopen record, in relicensing proceeding for Yadkin Hydroelectric Project in North Carolina. Alcoa Power Generating Inc., 144 FERC ¶ 61,218
(2013) (denying reh’g of 5/30/13 notice denying late intervention); 152 FERC ¶ 61,040
(2015) (denying reh’g of 3/3/15 notice rejecting motion to reopen record).
FERC Docket No. P-2197
Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. FERC
Nos. 15-1287 and 15-1288 (D.C. Cir. filed 8/25/2015)
Tariff revisions to transfer transmission assets from Entergy to ITC/MISO and to integrate Entergy transmission facilities into the Midcontinent ISO; rate issues including through-and-out rate. ITC Holdings Corp., et al., 143 FERC ¶ 61,257
(2013), order on reh’g, 146 FERC ¶ 61,111
(2014), order on reh’g, 151 FERC ¶ 61,263
(2015); Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Op., Inc., 145 FERC ¶ 61,249
(2013), order on reh’g, 151 FERC ¶ 61,262
FERC Docket No. ER12-2681, et al.
Orangeburg, South Carolina v. FERC
No. 15-1274 (D.C. Cir. filed 8/12/2015)
Conditional acceptance of joint dispatch agreement following Duke/Progress merger; whether agreement and NC Commission favor native load sales to the disfavor of sales to Orangeburg. Duke Energy Corp. and Progress Energy, Inc.; Carolina Power & Light Co., 139 FERC ¶ 61,193
(2012), order on reh'g, 151 FERC ¶ 61,242
FERC Docket Nos. ER12-1338, ER12-1347
- Transmission Agency of Northern California, et al. v. FERC
No. 15-1241 (D.C. Cir. filed 7/29/2015)
Termination of Comprehensive Agreement between PG&E and Cal. DWR, and replacement agreements for continued interconnection of DWR generation to PG&E’s transmission system. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.; Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator, 149 FERC ¶ 61,276 (2014), reh’g denied, 151 FERC ¶ 61,252 (2015).
FERC Docket No. ER15-223, et al.
- Portland General Electric Co., et al. v. FERC
Nos. 15-1237 and 15-1275 (D.C. Cir. filed 7/22/2015 and later)
- Emera Maine (f/k/a Bangor Hydroelectric Co.), et al. v. FERC
No. 15-1212 (D.C. Cir. filed 7/13/2015)
Complaints challenging New England transmission owners’ 11.14 % base return on equity; set for hearing and settlement judge procedures. ENE (Environment Northeast), et al. v. Bangor Hydro-Electric Co., et al.; Attn’y Gen. of Mass. v. Bangor Hydro-Electric Co., et al., 147 FERC ¶ 61,235 (2014) and 149 FERC ¶ 61,156 (2014), reh'g denied, 151 FERC ¶ 61,125 (2015).
FERC Docket No. EL13-33, et al.
- Xcel Energy Services v. FERC
No. 15-1213 (D.C. Cir. filed 7/13/2015)
Orders establishing hearing and settlement procedures for two complaints, alleging that rate of return on common equity, in SPS power sales and transmission agreements, is too high. Golden Spread Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Southwestern Pub. Serv. Co., 147 FERC ¶¶ 61,238 and 61,239 (2014), order on reh’g, 151 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2015).
FERC Docket No. EL12-59, et al.
- Consolidated Edison Co. of New York and Linden VFT, LLC v. FERC
No. 15-1183 and 15-1188 (D.C. Cir. filed 6/25/2015)
- Cost allocation and responsibility for transmission projects approved through the PJM Regional Transmission Expansion Planning process. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Consolidated Edison Co. v. PJM Interconn., 147 FERC ¶ 61,028 (2014), order on complaint, reh’g & compl., 151 FERC ¶ 61,227 (2015).
FERC Docket No. ER14-972, et al.