FERC Judicial Review Tracker

This track­er was launched February 14, 2022. It was last updat­ed September 1, 2022.

The State Energy & Environmental Impact Center has created this tracker to collect court decisions reviewing orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).1 This tracker will be updated as new decisions are issued. It will also be expanded to cover earlier years.

Background

Under the statutes governing judicial review of FERC orders, the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act, an aggrieved party must seek rehearing from FERC before filing a petition for review.2 Court decisions reviewing FERC orders thus typically review two orders – an order, and an order on rehearing.

FERC is composed of five members, with no more than 3 from any one political party. The chair is determined by the president.3 FERC must have a quorum of three commissioners participating to take an action. A commissioner might not participate in a case if they are recused due to a conflict or other issue.

In this tracker, we include the history of the FERC orders on review. We list the Commissioner composition and Chair at the time of the final FERC order that was subject to the court decision. And we note which orders include a dissent or partial dissent (commissioners also sometimes concur, but we have not separately listed that data in this tracker for brevity’s sake).

117 cases match your search. 13 were granted, 90 were denied, 13 were granted in part, denied in part.   Download as CSV

Sierra Club, et al. v. FERC 6/28/2022

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology 4
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Gas
NGO
Denied

Petition challenging the Commission’s approval of Mountain Valley’s 14 percent return on equity as arbitrary and capricious denied. The challenge to the Commission’s EIS as inadequate in its discussion of potential mitigation measures and the project’s cumulative impacts is also denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition 5
Chair 6
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners 7
Republican
Chatterjee
4
1

FERC Orders on Review

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 171 FERC ¶ 61,232 (2020), reh’g denied, 172 FERC ¶ 62,100 (2020).

*This entry reflects the makeup of the Commission for the original order, as rehearing was denied by operation of law without a rehearing order.

Cletus Woodrow Bohon, et al. v. FERC 6/21/2022

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Gas
Other
Denied

Petition challenging FERC approval of a natural gas pipeline and seeking a declaration that Congress’s delegation to FERC of authority to grant pipelines is unconstitutional denied for jurisdictional reasons.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
N/A
N/A

FERC Orders on Review

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 161 FERC ¶ 61,043 (2017).

Belmont Municipal Light Department, et al. v. FERC 6/17/2022

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Electric
Industry
Granted in part, denied in part

Petition challenging Commission’s approval of ISO-NE’s tariff revisions for the IEP as arbitrary and capricious granted in part with regards to the Commission’s inclusion of coal, hydroelectric, biomass, and nuclear generators.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
4
1

FERC Orders on Review

ISO New Eng. Inc., 171 FERC ¶ 61,235 (2020), reh’g denied, 172 FERC ¶ 62,095 (2020).

*This entry reflects the makeup of the Commission for the original order, as rehearing was denied by operation of law without a rehearing order.

Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District v. FERC 6/17/2022

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Republican
Electric
Public Power
Denied

Petition challenging FERC failure to issue a declaratory order ithat the California Board had waived its certification authority under section 401(a)(1) of the CWA with regards to the Don Pedro and La Grange Projects denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Glick
5
1

FERC Orders on Review

Turlock Irrigation Dist., 174 FERC ¶ 61,042 (2021), reh’g order, 175 FERC ¶ 61,144 (2021).

New Fortress Energy Inc. v. FERC 6/15/2022

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Gas
Industry
Denied

Petition challenging FERC’s exercise of jurisdiction over LNG pipeline denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Glick
5
1

FERC Orders on Review

New Fortress Energy LLC, 174 FERC ¶ 61,207 (2021), reh’g denied, 176 FERC ¶ 61,031 (2021).

City of Salisbury, North Carolina v. FERC 6/10/2022

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Republican
Electric
Local Gov
Denied

Petition challenging FERC approval of plan to further elevate Cube’s pump station equipment to prevent flooding from the Yadkin River as inconsistent with the water quality certification denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
3
0

FERC Orders on Review

Cube Yadkin Generation LLC, 170 FERC ¶ 62,143 (2020), reh’g order denied in part, 172 FERC ¶ 61,254 (2020).

American Municipal Power, Inc., et al. v. FERC 3/28/2022

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Electric
Public Power
Denied
Petition challenging FERC approval of revisions to open access transmission tariff that would add planning procedures for supplemental transmission projects denied for lack of standing.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Danly
3
1

FERC Orders on Review

Appalachian Power Co., 170 FERC 61,196 (2020), order on reh’g, 173 FERC 61,157 (2020)

American Clean Power Association v. FERC 3/23/2022

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Electric
Industry
Denied
Petition challenging FERC orders approving network service agreements requiring interconnecting generators to maintain security for post-construction costs denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
3
0

FERC Orders on Review

Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 171 FERC 61,075 (2020), order on reh’g, 173 FERC 61,037 (2020)

Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., D/B/A Holy Cross Energy v. FERC 3/23/2022

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Electric
Industry
Denied
Petition challenging FERC order that Holy Cross is not entitled to firm transmission service denied in deference to agency’s reasonable interpretation.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
3
0

FERC Orders on Review

Public Service Company of Colorado, 170 FERC 61,294 (2020), order on reh’g, 173 FERC 61, 044 (2020)

LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. FERC 3/22/2022

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Electric
Industry
Denied
Petition challenging FERC ruling that ISO-New England’s choice of dates to determine when transmission projects were exempt from competitive-selection requirements satisfied FERC Order No. 1000 denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
3
0

FERC Orders on Review

ISO New England Inc., 171 FERC 61,211 (2020), reh’g denied, 172 FERC 61,293 (2020)

  1. Court decisions are gathered from FERC’s website.
  2. 15 U.S.C. § 717r; 16 U.S.C. § 825l.
  3. The list of current and previous chairs is available here.
  4. This tracker uses the affiliation of the president who nominated the reviewing judge as a proxy for the judge’s ideology. If the decision was issued by a panel of judges that were not all nominated by a president of the same political party, we have indicated the party affiliation of the president for the majority of judges on the panel.
  5. This indicates the political party affiliation of the majority of the FERC commissioners participating in the last decision on review in the relevant court case. “Split” indicates that there was an even number of Democrats and Republicans on the Commission at the time.
  6. This indicates the FERC chair at the time of the last decision on review in the relevant court case.
  7. This includes Commissioners who dissented in part from the order or concurred in part and dissented in part.