Transmission Access Policy Study v. Fed Energy Comm'n., No. 97-1715

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtEdward 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. St
Citation225 F.3d 667,343 U.S.App.D.C. 151
Docket NumberNo. 97-1715
Decision Date30 June 2000
Parties(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 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

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 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued November 3, 1999
Decided June 30, 2000

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.ss 205 and 206 and Otter Tail Power Company................685
                 2.s 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...............................717
                 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
                

PER CURIAM:

Following two notices of proposed rulemaking, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued Orders 888 and 889 on April 24, 1996.2 Reflecting the Commission's

Page 681

effort to end discriminatory and anticompetitive practices in the national electricity market and to ensure that electricity customers pay the lowest prices possible, these orders represent, as the Commission described in a later order not before us, "the foundation necessary to develop competitive bulk power markets...." Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 2000, 65 Fed. Reg. 810, 812 (2000).

Open access is the essence of Orders 888 and 889. Under these orders, utilities must now provide access to their transmission lines to anyone purchasing or selling electricity in the interstate market on the same terms and conditions as they use their own lines. By requiring utilities to transmit competitors' electricity, open access transmission is expected to increase competition from alternative power suppliers, giving consumers the benefit of a competitive market. Most fundamentally, FERC's open access policies, combined with parallel action now occurring on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
168 practice notes
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register March 30, 2009
    • March 30, 2009
    ...purely in a qualitative balancing fashion and not quantified.'' The Alliance cited Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667, 736 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (``Given FERC's comparison of the frozen efficiency case to its base case yielded little difference, the agency had no reason......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register May 07, 2008
    • May 7, 2008
    ...order on reh'g, Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ] 61,046 (1998), aff'd in relevant part sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002); Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, O......
  • Railroad consolidations, mergers, and acquisitions of control: Safety integration plans,
    • United States
    • Federal Register March 15, 2002
    • March 15, 2002
    ...jurisdiction is premised on Chevron standards); [[Page 11588]] Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 225 F.3d 667, 694 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (``it is the law of (the D.C.) (C)ircuit that the deferential standard of Chevron applies to an agency's interpretati......
  • Indian River Cnty. v. Dep't of Transp., Case No. 18-cv-00333 (CRC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 24, 2018
    ...modeling. See Wilderness Soc'y v. Salazar, 603 F.Supp.2d 52, 61 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing Transmission Access Policy Study Grp. v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667, 736 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ; 348 F.Supp.3d 59 N. Slope Borough, 642 F.2d at 600 ); WildEarth Guardians, 8 F.Supp.3d at 34. Applying that principle, it......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
147 cases
  • Indian River Cnty. v. Dep't of Transp., Case No. 18-cv-00333 (CRC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 24, 2018
    ...modeling. See Wilderness Soc'y v. Salazar, 603 F.Supp.2d 52, 61 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing Transmission Access Policy Study Grp. v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667, 736 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ; 348 F.Supp.3d 59 N. Slope Borough, 642 F.2d at 600 ); WildEarth Guardians, 8 F.Supp.3d at 34. Applying that principle, it......
  • Am. Council of Life Insurers v. Dist. of Columbia Health Benefit Exch. Auth., Civil Action No. 14–cv–1138 BAH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • November 13, 2014
    ...there is no inherent constitutional defect, provided just compensation is available.” Transmission Access Policy Study Grp. v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667, 690 (D.C.Cir.2000).The plaintiff alleges that the Challenged Amendment amounts to an unconstitutional taking because the HC Assessment “is impos......
  • Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, Civ. Action No. 20-466 (EGS)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • June 15, 2021
    ...at the time." Wilderness Soc'y v. Salazar, 603 F. Supp. 2d 52, 61 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667, 736 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). Because the omnibus measures do not require the development of industry-funded monitoring programs in all FMPs but rat......
  • S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Nos. 12–1232
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 15, 2014
    ...basis. Id. at pp. 31,655, 31,854–55, 61 Fed.Reg. at 21,552, 21,666–67. This court in Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C.Cir.2000) (“ TAPS ”), aff'd sub nom. New York, 535 U.S. 1, 122 S.Ct. 1012, upheld Order No. 888 in nearly all respects, concluding that the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
5 books & journal articles
  • Hydropower
    • United States
    • Legal pathways to deep decarbonization in the United States Part V - Electricity Decarbonization
    • March 24, 2019
    ...888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61046 (1998), af’d in relevant part sub nom . Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), af’d sub nom . New York v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 535 U.S. 1 (2002). 223. Southwest Power Pool, Inc., 112 FERC......
  • Deep Decarbonization and Hydropower
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 48-4, April 2018
    • April 1, 2018
    ...888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61046 (1998), af’d in relevant part sub nom . Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), af’d sub nom . New York v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 535 U.S. 1 (2002). independent system operators (ISOs), whic......
  • Minimizing Constitutional Risk in State Energy Policy: A Survey of the State of the Law
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 45-5, May 2015
    • May 1, 2015
    ...state jurisdiction over the industry”). 121. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1, 17 (2002), citing Transmission Access Pol’y Study Grp. v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667, 691 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (observing that the electric industry is no longer “neatly divided into spheres of retail versus wholesale sales”). 1......
  • Legal After-Shocks on the Energy Seismograph: Judicial Prohibition of Recent State Regulation and Promotion of Power
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 45-6, June 2015
    • June 1, 2015
    ...Fed. Reg. 4688 (1997), on reh’g , Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC P 61046 (F.E.R.C.) (1998), af’d , Transmission Access Pol’y Study Grp. v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), af’d , New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002). electric utilities. In Order No. 2000, 49 the Commission encouraged the devel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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