225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), 97-1715, Transmission Access Policy Study v. Fed Energy Comm'n.

Docket Nº:97-1715 Consolidated with 98-1111, 98-1112, 98-1113, 98-1114, 98-1115, 98-1118,98-1119, 98-1120, 98-1122, 98-1124, 98-1125, 98-1126,98-1127, 98-1128, 98-1129, 98-1131, 98-1132, 98-1134,98-1136, 98-1137, 98-1139, 98-1140, 98-1141, 98-1142,98-1143, 98-1145, 98-1147, 98-1148, 98-1149, 98-1150,98-1152, 98-1153, 98-1154, 98-1155, 98-1156, 98-1159,98-11
Citation:225 F.3d 667
Party Name:Transmission Access Policy Study Group, et al. Petitioner v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Respondent Vermont Department of Public Service, et al., Intervenors
Case Date:June 30, 2000
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 667

225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

Transmission Access Policy Study Group, et al. Petitioner

v.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Respondent

Vermont Department of Public Service, et al., Intervenors

No. 97-1715 Consolidated with 98-1111, 98-1112, 98-1113, 98-1114, 98-1115, 98-1118,98-1119, 98-1120, 98-1122, 98-1124, 98-1125, 98-1126,98-1127, 98-1128, 98-1129, 98-1131, 98-1132, 98-1134,98-1136, 98-1137, 98-1139, 98-1140, 98-1141, 98-1142,98-1143, 98-1145, 98-1147, 98-1148, 98-1149, 98-1150,98-1152, 98-1153, 98-1154, 98-1155, 98-1156, 98-1159,98-1162, 98-1163, 98-1166, 98-1168, 98-1169, 98-1170,98-1171, 98-1172, 98-1173, 98-1174, 98-1175, 98-1176,98-1178,98-1180

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

June 30, 2000

Argued November 3, 1999

Page 668

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 669

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 670

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 671

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 672

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 673

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 674

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 675

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 676

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 677

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 678

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sherilyn Peterson, John T. Miller, Jr., Robert C. McDiarmid, Stanley C. Fickle, Sara D. Schotland, Jeffrey L. Landsman, Lawrence G. Malone, Jeffery D. Watkiss, Richard M. Lorenzo, Isaac D. Benkin, Wallace E. Brand, Daniel I. Davidson, Cynthia S. Bogorad, Harvey L. Reiter and Randolph Lee Elliott argued the causes for petitioners. With them on the briefs were William R. Maurer, Ben Finkelstein, David E. Pomper, Ronald N. Carroll, John Michael Adragna, Sean T. Beeny, Wallace F. Tillman, Susan N. Kelly, Craig W. Silverstein, A. Hewitt Rose, Bryan G. Tabler, James D. Pembroke, David C. Vladeck, Robert F. Shapiro, Lynn N. Hargis, Wallace L. Duncan, Richmond F. Allan, Alan H. Richardson, Michael A. Mullett, C. Kirby Mullen, Robert A. Jablon, Sara C. Weinberg, John F. Wickes, Jr., Todd A. Richardson, Brian A. Statz, John P. Cook, Charles F. Wheatley, Jr., Christine C. Ryan, Robert S. Tongren, Joseph P. Serio, Barry E. Cohen, Carrol S. Verosky, Jennifer S. McGinnity, Jonathan D. Feinberg, Charles D. Gray, Robert Vandiver, Cynthia Miller, Helene S. Wallenstein, William

Page 679

H. Chambliss, C. Meade Browder, Jr., Mary W. Cochran, Paul R. Hightower, Brad M. Purdy, Gisele L. Rankin, Robert D. Cedarbaum, Edward H. Comer, Edward Berlin, Robert V. Zener, Elizabeth W. Whittle, James H. McGrew, Donald K. Dankner, Frederick J. Killion, Joseph L. Lakshmanan, Stephen C. Palmer, Michael E. Ward, Steven J. Ross, Marvin T. Griff and Thomas C. Trauger. Leja D. Courter, Robert E. Glennon, Jr., Neil Butterklee, Zachary D. Wilson, Sheila S. Hollis, Janice L. Lower and James B. Ramsay entered appearances.

John H. Conway, Deputy Solicitor, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Timm L. Abendroth and Larry D. Gasteiger, Attorneys, argued the causes for respondent.With them on the brief was Jay L. Witkin, Solicitor. Susan J. Court, Special Counsel, and Edward S. Geldermann, Attorney, entered appearances.

Edward Berlin argued the cause for intervenors. With him on the briefs were J. Phillip Jordan, Robert V. Zener, Edward H. Comer, William M. Lange, Deborah A. Moss, James H. McGrew, Steven J. Ross, Elizabeth W. Whittle, Richard M. Lorenzo, David M. Stahl, D. Cameron Findlay, Peter Thornton, J. Phillip Jordan, Robert V. Zener, Robert C. McDiarmid, Cynthia S. Bogorad, Ben Finkelstein, Peter J. Hopkins, Margaret A. McGoldrick, Jeffery D. Watkiss, Ronald N. Carroll, Sara D. Schotland, Alan H. Richardson, Wallace L. Duncan, Richmond F. Allan, A. Hewitt Rose, Wallace F. Tillman, Susan N. Kelly, John M. Adragna, Sean T. Beeny and Randolph Lee Elliott. Edward J. Twomey, Richard P. Bonnifield, Frederick H. Ritts, David L. Huard, Dan H. McCrary, Mark A. Crosswhite, John N. Estes, III, Kevin J. McIntyre, John S. Moot, Clark E. Downs, Martin V. Kirkwood, Robert S. Waters, John T. Stough, Jr., Bruce L. Richardson, Floyd L. Norton, IV, William S. Scherman, Douglas F. John, Gary D. Bachman, Nicholas W. Fels, Robert Weinberg, Robert A. Jablon, Peter G. Esposito, Christine C. Ryan, Sheila S. Hollis, Stephen L. Teichler, James K. Mitchell, Gordon J. Smith, Edward J. Brady, Kevin F. Duffy, Michael P. May, Barbara S. Brenner, Michael J. Rustum, Sandra E. Rizzo, Kirk H. Betts, Pierre F. de Ravel d'Esclapon, Glen L. Ortman and William D. DeGrandis entered appearances.

Before: Sentelle, Randolph and Tatel, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam 1:

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 681 II. FERC'S AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE OPEN ACCESS ................................... 683 A. Statutory Challenges: FPA §§ 205 and 206 ............................... 685 1. §§ 205 and 206 and Otter Tail Power Company ......................... 685 2. § 206(a) Procedural and Evidentiary Requirements .................... 687 3. Discriminatory Effect of Order 888 .................................. 688 B. Constitutional Challenge: Fifth Amendment Takings Clause ............... 690 III. FEDERAL VERSUS STATE JURISDICTION OVER TRANSMISSION SERVICES .............. 690 A. Bundled Retail Sales ................................................... 692 B. Local Distribution Facilities .......................................... 695 IV. RECIPROCITY ............................................................... 697 A. Indirect Regulation of Non-Jurisdictional Utilities .................... 697 B. Limitation on Reciprocity .............................................. 698 Page 680

V. STRANDED COST RECOVERY PROVISIONS ......................................... 698 A. Wholesale Stranded Costs ............................................... 699 1. FERC's Authority to Provide for Stranded Cost Recovery .............. 701 a. Reasonable expectation of continued service ...................... 702 b. Sections 206 and 212 of the FPA .................................. 703 c. Implications of Cajun ............................................ 704 2. Natural Gas Precedent and Conformance to Cost Causation Principles ........................................................ 704 a. Natural gas precedent: AGD, K N Energy, and UDC .................. 705 b. Conformance to cost causation principles ......................... 707 3. FERC's Mobile-Sierra Findings ....................................... 709 a. FERC's authority to make a generic public interest finding ....... 710 b. FERC's stranded cost public interest finding ..................... 711 c. FERC's public interest finding regarding customers ............... 712 4. Availability of Stranded Cost Recovery to Nonjurisdictional Utilities and G & T Cooperatives ............................................ 712 5. Challenges to Technical Aspects of Order 888's Stranded Cost Recovery Provisions ............................................... 713 a. POSCR's challenges to the stranded cost formula .................. 714 b. Inclusion of known and measurable costs .......................... 715 c. Treatment of energy costs in the market option ................... 715 d. Rescission of notice of termination provision .................... 716 e. Provision for benefits lost ...................................... 716 B. Retail Stranded Costs .................................................. 717 1. Stranded Costs Arising from Retail Wheeling ......................... 717 a. FERC's jurisdiction over retail stranded costs ................... 718 b. FERC's refusal to assert jurisdiction over all retail stranded costs .......................................................... 719 2. Stranded Costs Relating to Retail-Turned-Wholesale Customers ........ 722 VI. CREDITS FOR CUSTOMER-OWNED FACILITIES AND BEHIND-THE-METER GENERATION .............................................................. 724 VII. LIABILITY, INTERFACE ALLOCATION, AND DISCOUNTING .......................... 727 A. Liability and Indemnification .......................................... 727 B. Interface Allocation ................................................... 729 C. Delivery-Point-Specific Discounting .................................... 730 VIII. TARIFF TERMS AND CONDITIONS ............................................... 733 A. Headroom Allocation .................................................... 733 B. Headroom Prioritization ................................................ 733 C. Duplicative Charges .................................................... 734 D. Multiple Control Areas ................................................. 734 E. Right-of-First-Refusal ................................................. 735 IX. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT COMPLIANCE .............................................................. 735 A. NEPA Compliance ........................................................ 735 1. Adequacy of Base Case ............................................... 735 2. Failure to Adopt Mitigation Measures ................................ 736 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance .................................. 737

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP