Port of Seattle, Wash. v. F.E.R.C.

Decision Date24 August 2007
Docket NumberNos. 03-74139, 03-74472, 03-74769, 04-70110, 04-70185, 04-70703, 04-71189.,s. 03-74139, 03-74472, 03-74769, 04-70110, 04-70185, 04-70703, 04-71189.
Citation499 F.3d 1016
PartiesPORT OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, Petitioner, IDACORP Energy; Williams Power Company Inc.; City of Tacoma, Washington; Southern California Edison Company; Constellation Power Source Inc.; El Paso Merchant Energy L.P.; Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc.; Tractebel Energy Marketing Inc.; BP Energy Co., Intervenors, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent, M-S-R Public Power Agency; Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC; Puget Sound Energy; City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; Sempra Energy Trading Corp.; Energy Plus LLC; Northern California Power Agency, Intervenors, Port of Seattle, Applicant-Intervenor. City of Seattle, Petitioner, IDACORP Energy L.P.; People of the State of California; Port of Seattle; Duke Energy North America, LLC, Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC, (Collectively, "Duke Energy"); City of Tacoma, Intervenors, Benton County, Franklin County, Grant County; Transcanada Energy; Public Service Company Of Colorado; Powerex Corp.; California Independent System Operator corporation; Alcoa Inc.; Columbia Falls Aluminum Company, LLC; Williams Power Company Inc.; California Electricity Oversight Board; Portland General Electric Company; Northern California Power Agency; El Paso Merchant Energy L.P., Intervenors, v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Respondent, Avista Corporation; Avista Energy; The City of Los Angeles Department Of Water and Power; Sempra Energy; Puget Sound Energy; Pinnacle West Cos.; Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc.; BP Energy Co.; Tractebel Energy Marketing Inc.; M-S-R Public Power Agency; Modesto Irrigation District (Mid); The City of Santa Clara; City of Redding; Coral Power; PPL Energyplus, LLC; PPL Montana, Intervenors. City of Tacoma, Washington, Petitioner, Duke Energy North America, LLC, Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC, (Collectively, "Duke Energy"); California Attorney General; Port of Seattle, Intervenors, v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Respondent, IDACORP Energy L.P.; Pinnacle West Capital Corporation; Northern California Power Agency; Avista Energy Inc.; Avista Corporation; M-S-R Public Power Agency; Public Service Company of Colorado; City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; Sempra Energy Trading Corp.; Public Service Company of New Mexico; PPL Energyplus; PPL Montana; Coral Power, LLC, Intervenors. Puget Sound Energy, Petitioner, v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Respondent, Duke Energy North America, LLC, Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC, (Collectively, "Duke Energy"); City of Tacoma, Washington; California Independent System Operator Corporation; Public Service Company of Colorado; Sempra Energy Trading Corp.; City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, (PNW); Coral Power, LLC; Transcanada Energy Ltd.; Williams Power Company Inc.; Northern California Power Agency, (NCPA); Port of Seattle Washington; M-S-R Public Power Agency; The Modesto Irrigation District ("Mid"), The City of Santa Clara, California ("Santa Clara") and The City of Redding, California ("Redding"); California Electricity Oversight Board; Alcoa Inc.; Columbia Falls Aluminum Company, LLC ("CFAC"); Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc.; PacificCorp; People of the State of California, ex rel. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Applicants-Intervenors. People of the State of California; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Petitioners, v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Respondent, Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc., Applicant-Intervenor. People of the State of California, Petitioner, City of Tacoma, Washington; Port of Seattle, Washington, Intervenors, IDACORP Energy L.P.; California Electricity Oversight Board; Transcanada Energy Ltd.; Benton, Franklin and Grant County, Washington Public Utility Districts; The California Independent System Operator Corporation; Columbia Falls Aluminum Company, LLC; Alcoa, Inc.; Portland General Electric Company; Bonneville Power Administration; Powerex Corp.; Benton County; Franklin County; Grant County, Washington, Intervenors, v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Respondent, BP Energy Company; Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc.; City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; Sempra Energy Trading Corp.; Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; Avista Energy, Inc.; Coral Power, L.L.C.; Northern California Power Agency; The M-S-R Public Power Agency; Modesto Irrigation District (Mid); City of Santa Clara, California; City of Redding, California; Pinnacle West Companies; Public Service Company of Colorado; PPL Energyplus, LLC; PPL Montana, LLC; Avista Corporation, Intervenors. California Public Utilities Commission, Petitioner, v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Margaret A. Moore, Howard E. Shapiro, and Vincenzo Franco, Van Ness Feldman, PC, Washington, D.C.; Alan Z. Yudkowsky, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Truth v. Kent School Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 24, 2007
    ... ...         Jane M. Whicher, Port Townsend, WA, for amicus American Civil Liberties Union ... City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1129 (9th Cir.2005) (quotations and citation omitted) ... ...
  • City of Redding v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 27, 2012
    ...Section 313 of the FPA “limits judicial review to those parties who have been ‘aggrieved by an order of the Commission.’ ” Port of Seattle, 499 F.3d at 1028 (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 825 l(b)). Additionally, a party must meet the constitutional standing requirements of injury-in-fact, redressabi......
  • California Dept. of Water v. Powerex Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • July 22, 2008
    ...Robert E. Cowen, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. 1. See, e.g., Port of Seattle v. FERC, 499 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir.2007); Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Cal. v. FERC, 474 F.3d 587 (9th Cir.2006); Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County v. FERC, 471 F.......
  • Alaska Oil & Gas Assoc. v. Salazar
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Alaska
    • January 11, 2013
    ...U.S. at 42–43, 103 S.Ct. 2856. 44.Atchison T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Wichita Bd. of Trade, 412 U.S. 800, 807, 93 S.Ct. 2367, 37 L.Ed.2d 350 (1973). 45.Port of Seattle, Wash. v. F.E.R.C., 499 F.3d 1016, 1035 (9th Cir.2007) (citing Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 488, 71 S.Ct. 45......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 4 Forest Planning: Shifting Ecological and Legal Bases for National Forest Management
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Public Land Law, Regulation, and Management 2022 (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008).[88] River Runners, 593 F.3d at 1067 (cleaned up).[89] Port of Seattle, Wash. v. F.E.R.C., 499 F.3d 1016, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, (1983)).[90] Alliance for the Wi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT