Federal Energy Regulatory Commission skip navigation


FERC Seal

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. California Public Utilities Commission v. FERC
    No. 13-74361 (9th Cir. filed 12/18/2013)
      Denial of interlocutory appeal of ALJ’s decision not to hold FERC proceeding in abeyance, concerning recovery of wildfire costs from ratepayers, until decision in CPUC proceeding. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., 145 FERC ¶ 61,136 (2013), rejecting rehearing of decision not to hear interlocutory appeal.
      FERC Docket No. ER12-2454


  2. City of Holland, Michigan Board of Public Works v. FERC
    No. 13-1306 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/16/2013)
      Finding that Holland’s facilities are part of the bulk electric system and properly part of the NERC compliance registry. City of Holland, Michigan, 139 FERC ¶ 61,055 (2012), reh’g denied, 145 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2013).
      FERC Docket No. RC11-5


  3. Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Co. v. FERC and United States of America
    No. 13-1305 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/13/2013)
      Order granting in part complaints, alleging that Enterprise has violated a settlement by no longer accepting nominations for the transportation of jet fuel or distillates, and establishing limited hearing on the issue of damages. CHS Inc., et al. v. Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Co., LLC; Chevron Products Co. v. Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Co., LLC, 145 FERC ¶ 61,056 (2013).
      FERC Docket No. OR13-25, et al.


  4. Kern River Gas Transmission Co. v. FERC
    No. 13-1303 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/13/2013)


  5. St. Paul Park Refining Co. LLC v. FERC and United States of America
    No. 13-1302 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/13/2013)
      Order dismissing complaint that alleged that 2008 settlement, instituting a surcharge for an oil pipeline expansion project, no longer is just and reasonable. St. Paul Park Refining Co. LLC v. Enbridge Pipelines (North Dakota) LLC, 145 FERC ¶ 61,050 (2013).
      FERC Docket No. OR13-28


  6. Louisiana Public Service Commission v. FERC
    No. 13-60874 (5th Cir. filed 12/10/2013)
      Implementation of bandwidth remedy based on calendar year 2008 data – third annual bandwidth proceeding; consideration of various inputs to formula. Entergy Services, Inc., Op. No. 518, 139 FERC ¶ 61,105 (2012), order on reh’g & clar., 145 FERC ¶ 61,047 (2013).
      FERC Docket No. ER09-1224


  7. U.S. Department of Interior v. FERC
    No. 13-2439 (1st Cir. filed 11/18/2013)
      Replacement of the existing wooden flashboards of Pawtucket Dam in Lowell, Mass. with an inflatable crest gate system, to reduce risk of flooding; effect on historic preservation. Boot Hydropower and Eldred L. Field Hydroelectric Trust, 143 FERC ¶ 61,048 (2013), reh’g denied, 144 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2013).
      FERC Docket No. P-2790


  8. Crescent Bar Condominium Master Ass’n and Crescent Bar Recreational Vehicle Homeowners Ass’n v. FERC
    No. 13-73971(9th Cir. filed 11/15/2013)
      Approval of shoreline management plan for Priest Rapids Project; determination that licensee is not required to permit private uses (including private leasing) of project lands. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant County, Wash., 143 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2013), reh'g denied, 144 FERC ¶ 61,210 (2013).
      FERC Docket No. P-2114


  9. Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FERC
    No. 13-1278 (D.C. Cir. filed 11/13/2013)
      Order on remand from Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FERC, 601 F.3d 581 (D.C. Cir. 2010), concerning FERC’s decision to allow MoGas Pipeline to include full purchase price of certain pipeline assets (including amount in excess of book value) in rate base, based on showing of ratepayer benefits. Missouri Interstate Gas Co., et al., 142 FERC ¶ 61,195 (2013), reh’g denied, 144 FERC ¶ 61,220 (2013).
      FERC Docket No. CP06-407


  10. New Energy Capital Partners, LLC v. FERC
    No. 13-1277 (D.C. Cir. filed 11/8/2013)
      Denial of late intervention in relicensing proceeding for Yadkin Hydroelectric Project in North Carolina. Alcoa Power Generating Inc., 144 FERC ¶ 61,218 (2013) (denying rehearing of May 30, 2013 notice denying late intervention).
      FERC Docket No. P-2197


  11. California Independent System Operator Corp. v. FERC
    No. 13-1251 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/16/2013)
      California ISO’s compliance filing to implement demand response cost allocation requirements of Order No. 745. California Independent System Operator Corp., 137 FERC ¶ 61,217 (2011), reh’g denied, 144 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2013).
      FERC Docket No. ER11-4100


  12. Turlock Irrigation District, et al. v. FERC
    Nos. 13-1250 and 13-1253 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/13/2013 and later)
      Determination that licensing is required for unlicensed 4.9 MW La Grange Project, on the Tuolumne River in California, because of findings based on navigability, federal lands, and post-1935 construction. Turlock Irrigation Dist. and Modesto Irrigation Dist., 141 FERC ¶ 62,211 (2012), order on reh’g and stay, 144 FERC ¶ 61,051 (2013).
      FERC Docket No. UL11-1


  13. Tesoro Alaska Co. and Anadarko Petroleum Co. v. FERC and United States of America
    Nos. 13-1248 and 13-1249 (D.C. Cir. No. filed 9/13/2013)
      Approval of contested settlement, addressing cost pooling among owners of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., et al., 144 FERC ¶ 61,025 (2013).
      FERC Docket No. IS09-348, et al.


  14. DC Energy, LLC, et al. v. FERC
    No. 13-1240 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/9/2013)
      Denial of complaint opposing PJM’s plan to retroactively bill complainants for balancing operating reserve charges that were inappropriately avoided by reporting to PJM certain DC Energy transactions as internal bilateral transactions under PJM tariff. DC Energy, LLC, et al. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 138 FERC ¶ 61,165 (2012), reh’g denied, 144 FERC ¶ 61,024 (2013).
      FERC Docket No. EL12-8






QUICK LINKS




Updated: February 11, 2014