Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

593 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir. 2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · January 29, 2010 · No. 08-1199

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld FERC's approval of a 100-basis-point return-on-equity incentive for certain New England transmission projects. The court held that FERC reasonably linked the incentive to accelerating project completion and adequately supported its determination that the incentive could benefit consumers through improved reliability and reduced congestion.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Writing for the Court
Williams, Senior Circuit Judge; Rogers, Circuit Judge; Garland, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
January 29, 2010
Docket number
08-1199
Procedural posture
Petition for review of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission orders granting a 100-basis-point return-on-equity incentive for specified New England transmission projects.
Standard of review
The court reviewed FERC's order under the Administrative Procedure Act and applicable federal energy law, asking whether the Commission had a reasonable basis and substantial evidence for concluding that the incentive could accelerate project completion and benefit consumers, and whether the order was arbitrary and capricious. Issues not adequately raised in the petition for rehearing were outside the court's jurisdiction under 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b).
Precedential value
Published precedential decision of the D.C. Circuit
Parties
Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control, et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Disposition
writ_denied

Topics

judicial review of agency actionagency adjudicationadministrative lawpublic utilitiesfederalism

Practice areas

administrative lawenergy and utilities lawfederal courts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether FERC's requirement that the incentive be rationally related to the proposed transmission investment was an adequate legal standard.
  2. Whether substantial evidence supported FERC's conclusion that the incentive could accelerate completion of the transmission projects and benefit consumers.
  3. Whether FERC acted arbitrarily or capriciously by granting the incentive for projects completed before December 31, 2008 based partly on administrative burden and project-owner reliance.
  4. Whether the court had jurisdiction to review arguments that were not adequately presented in FERC's petition for rehearing.

Holdings

  1. FERC permissibly required that the proposed return-on-equity incentive fall within the zone of reasonable returns and have a rational relationship or nexus to the investment being made.
  2. Substantial evidence supported FERC's conclusion that the incentive could benefit consumers by accelerating completion of needed transmission projects.
  3. FERC reasonably limited the incentive primarily to projects completed by December 31, 2008 and declined to reopen the record under a later, more demanding standard.

Key quotations

the applicable standard [as] whether (i) the proposed incentive falls within the zone of reasonable returns; and (ii) there is some link or nexus between the incentives being requested and the investment being made, i.e., to demonstrate that the incentives are rationally related to the investments being proposed. (593 F.3d at 33)
Hence the case is quite different from New England Power Pool, 97 FERC ¶ 61,093, 2001 WL 1297757 (2001), which petitioners characterize as establishing a rule against "reward[ing] [utilities] for doing what [they are] supposed to do" anyway. (593 F.3d at 34)

Factual background

FERC approved a 100-basis-point return-on-equity adder for certain New England transmission projects intended to address congestion and reliability problems and to accelerate project completion. The transmission owners' evidence estimated that the incentive would cost customers $148.2 million in present-value terms but could produce benefits of $76 million for each year that completion was accelerated. Although the projects would eventually be completed without the incentive, FERC found that financial motivation could induce utilities to push projects through the approval process more quickly.

Procedural history

ISO New England and transmission owners sought approval of a regional transmission organization and return-on-equity incentives. FERC approved a 50-basis-point participation incentive, referred the proposed 100-basis-point transmission investment incentive to an administrative law judge, and then reversed the ALJ's determination that the record did not establish a need for the incentive. On rehearing, FERC limited the incentive primarily to projects completed by December 31, 2008. State utility regulators petitioned for review, and the D.C. Circuit denied the petition.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…