Federal Energy Regulatory Commission skip navigation

New Petitions
Text Size small medium large

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. Air Transport Ass’n of America v. FERC and United States
    No. 15-1421 (D.C. Cir. filed 11/16/2015)
      Market-based rates for the Seaway crude oil pipeline system. Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and Enbridge Inc. 146 FERC ¶ 61,115 PDF (2014), order on reh’g, 152 FERC ¶ 61,203 PDF (2015).
      FERC Docket No. OR12-4

  2. 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 PDF (2014), order on reh’g, 153 FERC ¶ 61,144 PDF (2015).
      FERC Docket No. EL00-95, et al.

  3. NextEra Energy Resources, LLC v. FERC
    No. 15-1355 (D.C. Cir. filed 10/19/2015)
      Interconnection of wind generation project with Ameren Illinois transmission system; allocation of network upgrade costs. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 147 FERC ¶ 61,106 PDF (2014), order on reh’g & compl., 152 FERC ¶ 61,145 PDF (2015).
      FERC Docket No. ER14-1470

  4. El Paso Natural Gas Co., L.L.C. v. FERC
    No. 15-1323 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/11/2015)
      Orders, following hearing and ALJ decision, on various reserved ratemaking issues in El Paso general rate case. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 139 FERC ¶ 61,095 PDF (2012), order on reh’g and compl., 152 FERC ¶ 61,039 PDF (2015).
      FERC Docket No. RP08-426

  5. 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 PDF (2013), order on reh’g, 152 FERC ¶ 61,050 PDF (2015).
      FERC Docket No. ER05-1056

  6. 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 PDF (2013) (denying reh’g of 5/30/13 notice denying late intervention); 152 FERC ¶ 61,040 PDF (2015) (denying reh’g of 3/3/15 notice rejecting motion to reopen record).
      FERC Docket No. P-2197

  7. 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 PDF (2013), order on reh’g, 146 FERC ¶ 61,111 PDF (2014), order on reh’g, 151 FERC ¶ 61,263 PDF (2015); Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Op., Inc., 145 FERC ¶ 61,249 PDF (2013), order on reh’g, 151 FERC ¶ 61,262 PDF (2015).
      FERC Docket No. ER12-2681, et al.

  8. 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 PDF (2012), order on reh'g, 151 FERC ¶ 61,242 PDF (2015).
      FERC Docket Nos. ER12-1338, ER12-1347

  9. 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 PDF (2014), reh’g denied, 151 FERC ¶ 61,252 PDF (2015).
      FERC Docket No. ER15-223, et al.

  10. Portland General Electric Co., et al. v. FERC
    Nos. 15-1237 and 15-1275 (D.C. Cir. filed 7/22/2015 and later)
      Complaint concerning utility obligation to integrate with and purchase from small wind qualifying facility. PáTu Wind Farm, LLC v. Portland General Electric Co.; PáTu Wind Farm, LLC, 150 FERC ¶ 61,032 PDF (2015), reh’g denied, 151 FERC ¶ 61,223 PDF (2015).
      FERC Docket No. EL15-6, et al.

  11. 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 PDF (2014) and 149 FERC ¶ 61,156 PDF (2014), reh'g denied, 151 FERC ¶ 61,125 PDF (2015).
      FERC Docket No. EL13-33, et al.

  12. 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 PDF and 61,239 PDF (2014), order on reh’g, 151 FERC ¶ 61,126 PDF (2015).
      FERC Docket No. EL12-59, et al.

  13. 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 PDF (2014), order on complaint, reh’g & compl., 151 FERC ¶ 61,227 PDF (2015).
      FERC Docket No. ER14-972, et al.


Updated: December 14, 2015