Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel v. F.E.R.C.
Decision Date | 22 June 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 04-1238.,04-1238. |
Citation | 490 F.3d 954 |
Parties | COLORADO OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL, et al., Petitioners v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent American Gas Association, et al., Intervenors. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Before: ROGERS, TATEL and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
In a proceeding under section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determined that anticompetitive and market manipulative practices were making market-based electricity transmission rates unjust and unreasonable. See Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorizations, 97 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,220, at 61,974-75 (2001) (initiating section 206 proceeding); Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorizations, 103 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,349, at 62,373-74 (2003) ( ); Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorizations, 105 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,218, at 62,142 (2003) ( ). As a remedy, the Commission approved a series of "Market Behavior Rules" that prohibited such practices and permitted the Commission and the public to monitor market-based energy transactions more closely. Id. at 62,142-43 (summarizing Rules). The Market Behavior Rules were not issued in the form of Commission regulations, but instead conditions imposed upon all existing and future market-based tariffs approved by the Commission. See 103 F.E.R.C. at 62,373 n.5.
Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel and others (hereinafter "Consumer Advocates") petition for review. Asserting that the Market Behavior Rules simply regulate sellers' behavior, they argue that the Commission, having found rates unjust and unreasonable, violated FPA section 206 by failing also to "fix" a new rate. Consumer Advocates go on to argue that in fixing a new rate, the Commission must reject all market-based rates. According to petitioners, certain aspects of FPA section 205, which provides the framework for the filed rate system, are fundamentally incompatible with market-based tariffs.
The Commission argues that intervening events have mooted Consumer Advocates' claim. Specifically, after the petition was filed, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ("EPAct"), Pub.L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 ( ), which gave the Commission explicit authority to prohibit "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" used in the purchase or sale of electric energy or transmission services. On our own motion, we held Consumer Advocates' petition for review in abeyance, along with five other petitions for review regarding these proceedings, while the Commission determined whether it would exercise this new authority and, in the process, revise or repeal the Market Behavior Rules. See Cinergy Mktg. & Trading, L.P. v. FERC, No. 04-1168, 2006 U.S.App. LEXIS 3682 (D.C.Cir. Feb. 15, 2005). The Commission did just that: it rescinded the Market Behavior Rules, replacing them with Commission regulations, some of which were issued under its new EPAct authority. See Investigations of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorizations, 114 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,165, at 61,528-29 (2006). The rescission of the Market...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
...ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, et al.No. 07–835.Supreme Court of the United StatesApril 14, 2008. OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Case below, 490 F.3d 954. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ...