杏十八新茶分享

 

City of Redding v. FERC

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
  • Date Filed: 08-27-2012
  • Case #: 09-72775
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge Clifton for the Court; Circuit Judge Thomas; Dissent by Circuit Judge McKeown

Under 搂 206 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does not have broad retroactive ratesetting authority over non-jurisdictional sellers. FERC鈥檚 refund authority under the provision is limited to being prospective only, and it extends only to those entities under its jurisdiction.

In an attempt to alleviate California鈥檚 soaring energy prices in the mid 1990s, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ordered refunds from both public and non-public entities for prices paid above what FERC later determined to be the 鈥渏ust and reasonable鈥 rate. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit found FERC lacked authority to order refunds from non-public utilities because they were not under FERC鈥檚 jurisdiction. In orders subsequent to this ruling, FERC stated that it had 鈥渞evised鈥 or 鈥渞eset鈥 the market rates for the period when it had ordered refunds pursuant to authority from 搂 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 搂 824e. Petitioners, municipal and federal governmental entities that sold electricity in the affected markets but are outside FERC鈥檚 refund jurisdiction, appeal these orders. Petitioners are both 鈥渁ggrieved鈥 parties under the FPA and retained a sufficient stake in the outcome, thus providing standing to bring their petition. To determine whether the petition was barred as a collateral attack on a prior order, the Court had to determine whether the Order the petition was based was a 鈥渕odification鈥 of a prior order, which is reviewable on appeal, or merely a 鈥渃larification.鈥 Because the July 2001 Order in question lacked clarity and later orders were not entirely consistent, the Court determined FERC鈥檚 shifting position was not mere clarification, and the petition was not barred. By looking at Congress鈥檚 intent as well as the language and overall structure of the statute, the Court concluded FERC does not have broad power under 搂 206 to retroactively reset rates for all market participants. FERC鈥檚 refund authority is limited to being prospective only, and it extends only to public utilities. The Court concluded that the specific FERC Orders being challenged do not exceed the limits on FERC鈥檚 authority. PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top