Commissioner James Danly Statement
July 3, 2023
Docket Nos. ER20-67-003, ER20-113-003, ER20-116-003
I dissent from today’s issuance[1] because it fails to fully and adequately respond to the arguments raised in Evergy, Inc.’s rehearing request[2] regarding the implementation of 18 C.F.R. § 35.36(a)(9) and, therefore, it violates the Administrative Procedure Act.[3] The Commission owes it to the parties and the public to clearly address the substantive issues raised on rehearing.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
[1] Evergy Kan. Cent., Inc., 184 FERC ¶ 61,003 (2023).
[2] See Evergy, Inc., et al. November 21, 2022 Request for Rehearing or, in the Alternative, Clarification (Accession No. 20221121-5223).
[3] See New England Power Generators Ass’n, Inc. v. FERC, 881 F.3d 202, 211 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (finding “that FERC did not engage in the reasoned decisionmaking required by the Administrative Procedure Act” because it “failed to respond to the substantial arguments put forward by Petitioners and failed to square its decision with its past precedent”).