Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Vistra Corporation, joined by several other electricity suppliers, petitioned the DC Circuit to review three underlying orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These orders involve the sale of electricity in capacity markets. In response to periodic concerns, the Commission has adjusted the market’s features to ensure that it remains competitive.   Vistra and accompanying suppliers (collectively, Petitioners) brought three arguments challenging the discontinuance of the default offer cap. The court explained that the Commission adequately explained its choice to rely on unit-specific review rather than a default offer cap, including that Petitioners’ recalibrated alternative would not have sufficiently mitigated anti-competition concerns. The court explained that the Commission also addressed its accounting of the risks associated with acquiring a capacity commitment, risks that it explained are limited to participation in a capacity market. Finally, Petitioners’ Section 205 rights remain intact. The Commission reasonably interpreted supplier offers in capacity markets to be merely input into obtaining the market-clearing price. These inputs are not the ultimate rates that come out of the market, which are, in turn, subject to Section 205. View "Vistra Corp. v. FERC" on Justia Law

Petitioner Fairless Energy, LLC (Fairless Energy) contends that it pays too much for the transportation of natural gas to fuel its electric power generating plant located in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania (the Fairless plant). In these consolidated petitions for review of orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission), Fairless Energy maintains that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and contrary to reasoned decision-making, when it exercised primary jurisdiction over Fairless Energy’s natural gas transportation rate dispute with intervenor Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), and determined that the appropriate rate was the incremental rate for pipeline expansion under Transco’s Tariff.   The DC Circuit denied the petitions for review. The court held that Fairless Energy fails to demonstrate that either the Commission’s exercise of primary jurisdiction over the Transco-Fairless Energy natural gas transportation rate dispute or its decision regarding the appropriate rate was arbitrary and capricious. The court explained that the Commission reasonably started its evaluation with the 2018 Agreement’s Exhibit C and determined that it unambiguously “did not establish a negotiated rate” because it stated “None” in the location for the specification of a negotiated rate. After reaching this decision, the Commission was appropriately able to decline to consider extrinsic evidence. View "Fairless Energy, LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

In this consolidated appeal of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) orders, two utility companies argue that Attachment Z2 plainly requires utilizing the N-1 Contingency Analysis (N-1) methodology. And they assert that FERC erred in concluding that the Tariff was ambiguous, relying on extrinsic evidence to interpret that the Reservation Stack Analysis (RSA) was the appropriate methodology. Second, they claim that the Regional Operator violated the filed rate doctrine because the filed rate was unclear about how much they would be charged. Finally, Petitioners contend that their charges offend Attachment Z1 because the Regional Operator neither identified the upgrade facilities that would accommodate their requests nor provided them with an estimate of the costs of such upgrades.   The DC Circuit dismiss in part the petitions for review related to the filed rate doctrine because that issue was not exhausted at the rehearing stage below. The court otherwise denied in part the petitions for review. The court explained that FERC appropriately noted that the purpose of Attachment Z1 is to identify new transmission facilities or new upgrades to existing facilities, while Attachment Z2 is designed to calculate a customer’s obligation to pay for its use of existing Creditable Upgrades funded by others. The court explained that because the difference between Attachment Z1 and Attachment Z2 arises out of their plain texts, and FERC’s orders acknowledged that difference, FERC “would clearly have acted on [this] ground even if the other [grounds] were unavailable.” Therefore, denying the petitions for review on this issue is consistent with precedents. View "Xcel Energy Services Inc. v. FERC" on Justia Law

MSHA’s jurisdiction, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (“Commission”) held that for the list of items in Section 802(h)(1)(C) to be considered a “mine,” the items had to be located at an extraction site, or the roads appurtenant thereto.  Because neither the trucks nor the facility associated with the citations at issue were located on land covered under subsections (A)–(B), the Commission found they failed to constitute a “mine” and vacated the citations. The Commission also found that, as an independent contractor not engaged in servicing a mine at the time of the citation, KC Transport failed to qualify as an “operator” under Section 802(d) of the Mine Act. The Secretary of Labor (“the Secretary”), acting through MSHA, appealed the Commission’s decision and asked the court to uphold the two citations as an appropriate exercise of the Secretary’s jurisdiction under the Mine Act. In the Secretary’s view, subsection (C) of the “mine” definition covers KC Transport’s facility and trucks because they were “used in” mining activity.   The DC Circuit vacated and remanded the Commission’s decision, allowing the Secretary to interpret the statute’s ambiguous language. The court explained that given the Mine Act’s language, context, and the court’s binding precedent, it finds that the Commission erred in its interpretation of the “mine” and “operator” definitions. And we generally defer to the Secretary’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute—even when the Commission disagrees. But here, the Secretary’s position treats subsection (C) as 4 unambiguous and makes no meaningful effort to address the numerous practical concerns that would arise under such an interpretation. View "Secretary of Labor v. KC Transport, Inc." on Justia Law

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must ensure that the rules for funding new transmission facilities are just and reasonable. A funding regime is not just and reasonable if it makes one party foot the bill for a project with broad benefits. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative v. FERC, 898 F.3d 1254, 1255 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Here, two transmission owners and a utility company say FERC approved an unjust and unreasonable change to the transmission-funding regime in a region managed by Southwest Power Pool. The new regime, the Petitioners say, will likely force transmission owners to pay for projects that benefit the entire power grid. They petitioned for judicial review.   The DC Circuit denied the petitions for judicial review. But the Petitioners oversell the risk that the new regime will foist the costs of new projects on individual owners. For that to happen, the regime’s primary mechanisms for allocating costs would have to fail. In any case, FERC may balance the need to ensure that transmission owners bear perfectly proportional costs and benefits with other policy goals. Consolidated Edison Co. v. FERC, 45 F.4th 265, 286 (D.C. Cir. 2022). It did that here by approving a regime that allows participants in regional transmission zones to collaborate on selecting and funding new projects. View "Evergy Kansas Central, Inc. v. FERC" on Justia Law

Petitioner Green Development, LLC (Green Development) sought interconnection with the distribution system of Narragansett Electric Company (Narragansett), a public utility. Accommodation of the increased flows of electricity required certain upgrades to the transmission system owned by Respondent-Intervenor New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid (NE Power). NE Power assigned the costs of the transmission system upgrades directly to Narragansett. The newly assigned costs were reflected in a revised transmission service agreement (TSA) that NE Power and Narragansett filed for approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC). Green Development protested the revised TSA. The Commission denied Green Development’s protest.  Green Development petitions for review contending that the Commission (1) erroneously concluded that Green Development’s arguments in the underlying section 205 proceeding operated as a “collateral attack” on the Complaint Order; (2) improperly applied the governing seven-factor test; (3) misinterpreted the Tariff’s definition of “direct assignment facilities”; and (4) erroneously failed to apply the filing procedures of Schedule 21-Local Service of the Tariff.   The DC Circuit denied the petitions. First, the court held that Commission has cured any purportedly erroneous ruling that Green Development’s section 205 protest constituted a collateral attack on the Complaint Order. The court rejected Green Development’s fourth claim. The court wrote that the issue with Green Development’s contention is that it presumes that the procedures in Schedule 21-Local Service are “mandatory processes” that applied to the filing of the TSA. But, the SIS and associated technical arrangements “pertain to initiating transmission service” and “do not demonstrate that Narragansett as an existing transmission customer was required to request new transmission service” under the Tariff. View "Green Development, LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted Algonquin a certificate of public convenience and necessity that allowed it and the owner of the neighboring Maritimes & Northeast pipeline to undertake a series of upgrades. Those upgrades are known collectively as the Atlantic Bridge Project (“Project”). As part of the Project, Algonquin planned to build a new compressor station in Weymouth, Massachusetts. The compressor station would pressurize gas traveling north towards Maine. The Town of Weymouth, as well as several residents and environmental groups, petitioned this court to overturn the Commission’s certification decision for the Project. This court found no relevant error in the Commission’s decision and denied the petition. The entities sought review of two orders that followed the Commission’s issuance of the certificate of public convenience and necessity.   The DC Circuit dismissed the petitions. The court explained that to construe the Commission’s denial of rehearing as a reviewable new “order,” that would not change anything. That is because the statute strictly requires that every single “order” we review be accompanied by an “application to the Commission for rehearing.” The court further wrote that the denial of rehearing is not a reviewable order, so the Fore River Residents may not obtain judicial review under 15 U.S.C. Section 717r(b). And even if it were a reviewable order, their petition would be jurisdictionally deficient because they failed to request rehearing of it. View "Fore River Residents Against the Compressor Station v. FERC" on Justia Law

This case concerns how PJM, the manager of a large, multi-state electrical grid, prices the flow of electricity to utilities in times of congestion. Such congestion arises when energy is scarce in a particular location on the grid due to, for example, extreme weather conditions or a fire at a transmission station. That scarcity causes the dispatch of more expensive generation and can trigger the Transmission Constraint Penalty Factor (“Penalty Factor”) when such alternative generation is unavailable. The Penalty Factor imposes an upper bound on the costs PJM will incur to control a transmission constraint, and it is designed to send transparent price signals to the market and incentivize investment that will resolve the congestion and prevent it from recurring. Petitioner Citadel FNGE Ltd. is an energy trading firm. It challenged the Commission’s suspension of the Penalty Factor as arbitrary and capricious.   The DC Circuit denied the petitions. The court explained that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s decision that the Penalty Factor, as applied to the unique Northern Neck circumstances, could not work as designed because it increased costs without incentivizing supply or demand responses. Because application of the Penalty Factor increased costs for consumers without a commensurate benefit, the Commission reasonably found that its application in this context was unjust and unreasonable. View "Citadel FNGE Ltd. v. FERC" on Justia Law

XO Energy petitioned for a review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s approval of filings implementing a regional transmission organization’s (“RTO”) revised Forfeiture Rule for Financial Transmission Rights (“FTRs”). It contends that the Commission erred as a matter of law in declining to issue refunds to market participants who incurred forfeitures under the unapproved interim Rule. It further contends that the Commission’s approval of the revised 2021 Rule was arbitrary and capricious.   The DC Circuit granted the petition in part and denied it in part. The court affirmed the Commission’s denial of refunds and remands without vacating the 2021 Rule for further explanation of the Commission’s decision to exclude consideration of leverage as a required element of the Rule. The court explained that although the Commission acknowledges that leverage might be one way to determine cross-product manipulation, it states that it opted to allow PJM to employ other means to detect this conduct rather than require exemptions based on leverage. That is the extent of the Commission’s explanation. It does not address XO Energy’s position that market manipulation cannot occur when the net losses of a trader’s virtual transaction portfolio exceed the net profits from its FTR portfolio. Nor does it explain why the exclusion of this requirement strikes the appropriate balance between preventing manipulative conduct and not hindering legitimate hedging activity. Absent such explanation of its decision, the Commission’s failure to order a leverage exemption appears arbitrary and capricious. View "XO Energy MA, LP v. FERC" on Justia Law

This petition challenges several interrelated orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) that permitted the creation of a new energy transmission service across several states in the Southeast region of the United States, entitled the Southeast Energy Exchange Market (“SEEM”). FERC adopted the first order (“Deadlock Order”) by operation of law when its four Commissioners deadlocked 2-2 on whether the overall proposal was “just and reasonable” and otherwise met the requirements of the Federal Power Act (“FPA” or “Act”), and related FERC regulations. In a later order by majority vote, the Commission accepted tariff revisions by transmission service providers within SEEM to enable the new transmission service. Petitioners challenged these orders throughout the initial proceedings, on rehearing at the Commission, and now in this petition.   The DC Circuit granted the petition in part, denied the petition in part, and remanded it to the Commission for further proceedings. The court explained that since SEEM “began operations in November 2022” and only provides energy transactions for non-firm service, it follows that vacatur would not be disruptive, and the parties offer no arguments to the contrary in their briefing. Accordingly, vacatur of the Tariff Order is appropriate. The court wrote that the Commission’s orders finding Petitioners’ rehearing requests of the Deadlock Order untimely are vacated, and the petition—as it relates to review of the Deadlock Order and the associated orders accepting amendments to the SEEM Proposal—is remanded without vacatur of the related orders. View "Advanced Energy United, Inc. v. FERC" on Justia Law