Search Results

Exxon Mobil Oil Corp. v. FERC Nos. 05-1299, et al. Final rules under the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, governing the conduct of open seasons for Alaska natural gas transportation projects and the Commission's ability to require design changes in reviewing certificate applications.

Canadian Ass'n of Petroleum Prods. v. FERC No.05-1382 Policy statement on income tax allowances, addressing certain issues on court remand. Inquiry Regarding Income Tax Allowance, 111 FERC ¶ 61,139 (2005), reh'g dismissed, 112 FERC ¶ 61,203 (2005). Circuit D.C. Cir.

Public Service Electric & Gas Co. v. FERC No. 05-1325 Interconnection of merchant transmission project with PJM; interconnection study provisions of PJM tariff. Neptune Regional Transmission System v. PJM Interconnection, 110 FERC ¶ 61,098 (2005), order on reh'g, 111 FERC ¶ 61,455 (2005).

Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, et al. v. FERC Nos. 05-72739, et al. Issuance of new license, and minimum flows, for the Snoqualmie Falls Project. Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 107 FERC ¶ 61,331 (2004), order on reh'g, 110 FERC ¶ 61,200 (2005), reh'g denied, 111 FERC ¶ 61,317 (2005). Circuit 9th Cir.

Nat. Ass'n of Reg. Util. Comm'ners v. FERC Nos. 04-1148, et al. Order No. 2003 rulemaking, requiring the filing of revised open access transmission tariffs containing standard generator interconnection procedures and a standard agreement for large generators.

Jupiter Energy Corp. v. FERC No. 05-61173 Order on remand (407 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2005)), again finding that offshore natural gas pipeline facilities are jurisdictional transmission facilities. Jupiter Energy Corp., 111 FERC & 61,497 (2005), reh'g denied, 113 FERC & 61,103 (2005).

San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc. v. FERC No. 05-77186 Issuance of new license to Edison to continue operating the Mill Creek Project in San Bernardino County, California; dispute over minimum flow releases.

Brazos Electric Power Coop. v. FERC No. 05-1286 Decision that cogeneration facility owned by Ponderosa Pine Energy Partners, an Enron affiliate, satisfied the ownership criteria for qualifying facility status under PURPA.

KeySpan-Ravenswood, LLC v. FERC No. 05-1332 Denial of complaint alleging that NYISO charged its members rates that were not consistent with filed rate schedules; translation of installed capacity (ICAP) requirements into unforced capacity (UCAP). KeySpan Ravenswood, LLC v.

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline v. FERC No. 05-1209 Directive to Williston to recalculate its cost of service underlying its rates and to make refunds.