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

Ameren Services Company, et al. v. FERC 6/28/2018

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology 4
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Electric
Industry
Denied

Consolidated petitions challenging a series of FERC orders approving Midcontinent ISO’s calculation and assessment of Guarantee Charges in its energy markets, and FERC’s decisions not to issue refunds to market participants as a result of changing assessments denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition 5
Chair 6
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners 7
Democrat
Bay
4
0

FERC Orders on Review

Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 115 FERC ¶ 61,108 (2006), order on reh’g, 117 FERC ¶ 61,113(2006), reh’g denied, 118 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2007); Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 127 FERC ¶ 61,241 (2009), reh’g denied, 155 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2016); Ameren Servs. Co. v. Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 125 FERC ¶ 61,161 (2008); order on reh’g, 127 FERC ¶ 61,121 (2009).

Ameren Services Co., et al. v. FERC 6/22/2018

Judicial Review

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

Petition challenging FERC’s denial of Midcontinent ISO’s proposed interregional cost allocation methodology denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Democrat
Bay
4
0

FERC Orders on Review

Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 150 FERC ¶ 61,045 (2015), order on reh’g, 153 FERC ¶ 61,247 (2015), reh’g denied, 154 FERC ¶ 61,227 (2016).

Duke Energy Corporation, et al. v. FERC 6/15/2018

Judicial Review

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

Petition challenging FERC’s denial of petitioner’s request for indemnification and cost recovery for the purchase of excess natural gas during extreme weather denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Democrat
Bay
5
1

FERC Orders on Review

Duke Energy Corp. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ¶ 61,206 (2015).

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative v. FERC 6/15/2018

Judicial Review

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

Petition challenging FERC’s denial of petitioner’s request to retroactively waive governing tariff provisions to enable cost recovery denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Democrat
Bay
4
0

FERC Orders on Review

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, 151 FERC ¶ 61,207 (2015), reh’g denied, 154 FERC ¶ 61,155 (2016).

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, et al. v. FERC 6/12/2018

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
D.C. Circuit
Democrat
Electric
State Gov
Denied

Petitions challenging FERC’s modifications to PJM Interconnection’s market design to address underfunding of financial transmission rights denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Democrat
LaFleur (Acting)
3
0

FERC Orders on Review

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 156 FERC ¶ 61,180 (2016), reh’g denied, 158 FERC ¶ 61,093 (2017).

ESI Energy, LLC v. FERC 6/8/2018

Judicial Review

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

Petition challenging FERC determination that when a utility negotiates an agreement with a prospective customer and has filed multiple rates with FERC, the governing rate is the one in effect at the time the agreement was completed, denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Democrat
Bay
4
0

FERC Orders on Review

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 136 FERC ¶ 61,195 (2011), reh’g denied, 139 FERC ¶ 61,184 (2012), order on remand, 153 FERC ¶ 61,327 (2015).

Arkansas Public Service Commission v. FERC 6/1/2018

Judicial Review

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

Petition challenging FERC’s approval of settlement distributing proceeds of a pre-departure settlement when an operating company was withdrawing from a multi-state energy system denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Democrat
Bay
3
0

FERC Orders on Review

Entergy Servs., Inc., 154 FERC ¶ 61,173 (2016), reh’g denied in part and granted in part, 156 FERC ¶ 61,112 (2016).

Northwestern Corporation v. FERC 3/16/2018

Judicial Review

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

Petition challenging FERC’s modified cost recovery rate proposal for electric utility’s newly constructed generating station denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Democrat
Bay
4
0

FERC Orders on Review

NorthWestern Corp., Opinion No. 530, 147 FERC ¶ 61,049 (2014), reh’g denied, 155 FERC ¶ 61,158 (2016).

Coalition to Reroute Nexus; John Selzer; Elaine Selzer v. FERC 3/15/2018

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
6th Circuit
Republican
Gas
Other; NGO
Denied

Petition challenging FERC’s order granting certificates for construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline denied for lack of jurisdiction because a tolling order had not resolved requests for agency rehearing.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
3
0

FERC Orders on Review

Nexus Gas Transmission, LLC, et al, 160 FERC ¶ 61,022 (2017).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation v. FERC 3/12/2018

Judicial Review

Court
Judge Ideology
Case Type
Petitioner Type
Outcome
2nd Circuit
Democrat
Gas
State Gov
Denied

Petition challenging FERC’s authorization of construction of a natural gas pipeline and conclusion that New York DEC waived its authority to review the construction request for a water quality certification under the Clean Water Act denied.

FERC Proceeding

Commissioner Composition
Chair
Participating Commissioners
Dissenting Commissioners
Republican
Chatterjee
3
0

FERC Orders on Review

Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 160 FERC ¶ 61,065 (2017), reh’g denied, 161 FERC ¶ 61,186 (2017).

  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.