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

Entergy Services Inc. v. FERC 7/13/2021

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology 4
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Electric
Industry
Denied
Petition for review of FERC-ordered damages payment for misallocation of energy sales denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition 5
Chair 6
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners 7
Republican
Chatterjee
3
0

FERC Orders on Review

Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Entergy Corp., Op. No. 521, 139 FERC ¶ 61,240 (2012), order on reh’g, 155 FERC ¶ 61,064 (2016), order on reh’g, 160 FERC ¶ 61,109 (2016); Op. No. 548, 155 FERC ¶ 61,065 (2017), reh’g denied, 161 FERC ¶ 61,171 (2017); Op. No. 565, 165 FERC ¶ 61,022 (2018), reh’g denied, 169 FERC ¶ 61,179 (2019).

Delaware Division of the Public Advocate, et al. v. FERC 7/9/2021

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Electric
NGO; State Gov
Granted in part, denied in part
Petition for review of FERC’s orders on PJM capacity auction revisions (Variable Resource Requirement Curve) granted in part and denied in part.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
4
1

FERC Orders on Review

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 167 FERC ¶ 61,029 (2019), reh’g denied, 171 FERC ¶ 61,040 (2020).

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality v. FERC 7/2/2021

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
4th Circuit
Democrat
Electric
Industry; State Gov
Granted in part, denied in part
Petition for review of FERC license to McMahan Hydroelectric for the Bynum Hydroelectric Project granted in part, disagreeing with FERC’s conclusion that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality waived its rights under Clean Water Action section 401 and remanding to FERC to re-issue license to include water quality conditions.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
4
1

FERC Orders on Review

McMahan Hydroelectric, LLC, 168 FERC ¶ 61,185 (2019), reh’g denied, 171 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2020).

Environmental Defense Fund v. FERC 6/22/2021

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Gas
NGO
Granted
Petition for review of FERC certificate for the Spire STL Pipeline granted in part, vacating and remanding certificate.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
3
1

FERC Orders on Review

Spire STL Pipeline LLC, 164 FERC ¶ 61,085 (2018), order on reh’g, 169 FERC ¶ 61,134 (2019).

Shafer & Freeman Lakes Environmental Conservation Corporation, et al. v. FERC 3/26/2021

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Electric
Local Gov; NGO
Granted in part, denied in part
Petition for review of FERC approval of dam procedures and Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion granted in part and denied in part.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
4
0

FERC Orders on Review

N. Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. LLC, 163 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2018), reh’g denied, 166 FERC ¶ 61,030 (2019).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Sierra Club v. FERC 3/23/2021

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
2nd Circuit
Democrat
Gas
NGO; State Gov
Granted
Petition for review of FERC finding that New York Department of Environmental Conservation waived its Clean Water Act section 401 authority denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
McIntyre
3
0

FERC Orders on Review

Millennium Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 164 FERC ¶ 61,084 (2018); reh’g denied 167 FERC ¶ 61,007 (2019).

Public Service Electric and Gas Company v. FERC 3/2/2021

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Electric
Industry
Denied
Petition for review of FERC adoption of cost allocation methodology in PJM denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
4
0

FERC Orders on Review

Del. Pub. Serv. Comm’n. v. P.J.M. Interconnection, L.L.C., et al., 164 FERC ¶ 61,035 (2018), reh’g denied, 166 FERC ¶ 61,161 (2019)

Gregory R. Swecker and Beverly F. Swecker v. FERC 2/19/2021

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Electric
Other
Denied
Petition for review of Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act matter denied on jurisdictional grounds.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
4
0

FERC Orders on Review

Gregory and Beverly Swecker v. Midland Power Coop., et al., 170 FERC ¶ 61,289 (2020), reconsideration denied, 171 FERC ¶ 61,193 (2020).

International Transmission Company, et al. v. FERC 2/19/2021

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Electric
Industry
Denied
Petition for review of FERC’s orders on reduction of authorized return on equity denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
4
1

FERC Orders on Review

Consumers Energy Co., et al. v. Intern’tl Transm. Co., et al., 165 FERC ¶ 61,021 (2018), reh’g denied, 168 FERC ¶ 61,035 (2019).

Louisville Gas & Electric Company; Kentucky Utilities Company v. FERC 2/17/2021

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
6th Circuit
Republican
Electric
Industry
Granted
Petition for review of FERC’s contract analysis granted.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
3
0

FERC Orders on Review

Owensboro Municipal Utils. v. Louisville Gas and Elec. Co. and Kentucky Utils. Co., 166 FERC ¶ 61,131 (2019), reh’g denied, 169 FERC ¶ 61,030 (2019).

  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.