Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “North Carolina Utilities Commi v. FERC”
Bpa v. Fercpublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, CITY OF TACOMA; PORT OF SEATTLE; CORAL POWER, L.L.C.; CONSTELLATION ENERGY COMMODITIES GROUP, INC., No. 02-70262 Intervenors, FERC No. v. EL00-95-001 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,
Can Assn Petro v. FERCpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 9, 2001 Decided July 13, 2001 No. 96-1336 Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Petitioner v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Respondent Inland Pacific Energy Services Corporation, et al.,
*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr
Transm Access Plcy v. FERCpublic domain
225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000) Transmission Access Policy Study Group, et al. Petitionerv.Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, RespondentVermont 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-
Transm Access Plcy v. FERCpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 3, 1999 Decided June 30, 2000 As Amended Nov. 14, 2000 No. 97-1715 Transmission Access Policy Study Group, et al. Petitioner v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Respondent Vermont De
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALD. WALD, Circuit Judge: Petitioner North Carolina Utilities Commission (“NCUC”) seeks to vacate, or in the alternative to reverse and remand for further findings, an order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “the Commission”)1 affirming the Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“Initial Decision”)
PER CURIAM. This case involves challenges to the most recent reforms of electric transmission planning and cost allocation adopted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 791 a et seq. In Order No. 1000, as reaffirmed and clarified in Order Nos. 1000-A and 1000-B (together, “the Final Rule”), the Commission requi
Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Alabama Power Co.public domain
JERRE S. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: Gulf States Utilities sued the Southern Companies over two contracts for the purchase and sale of electricity. The district court took jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 (diversity of citizenship) and 2201 (declaratory judgment). Southern appeals, asserting lack of jurisdiction in the district court.1 Southern’s contention is that the Fede
Cities of Lakeland & Tallahassee, & Gainesville Regional Utilities v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commissionpublic domain
TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: This is a petition for review1 of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decision to implement a curtailment plan2 for natural gas distributed by the Florida Gas Transmission Company (Florida Gas). The petitioners are municipally owned electricity generating companies that use gas as boiler fuel. They ask us to set aside the Commission’s curtai
Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commissionpublic domain
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge PILLARD. PILLARD, Circuit Judge: Citizens of the small town of Myersville, in Frederick County, Maryland, oppose the construction of a natural gas facility called a compressor station in their town. The compressor station is a small part of a larger expansion of natural gas facilities in the northeastern Un
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 13–1674, –1676, –2052, –2262 ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION, et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. __________________________
MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAUGHTREY, J., joined. WELLFORD, J. (pp. 1272-73), delivered a separate concurring opinion. OPINION MOORE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Michigan Gas Company (“Mi-Gas”) petitions for review of two orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “the Commission”) authorizing construction by ANR Pipeline Company (“ANR”
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM1: Table of Contents I. Introduction. . 681 II.FERC’s AuthoRity to Require Open Acoess. M OO CO A. Statutory Challenges: FPA §§ 205 and 206 . lO OO CO 1. §§ 205 and 206 and Otter Tail Power Company. lO OO CO 2. § 206(a) Procedural and Evidentiary Requirements. cOO CO
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM1: Table of Contents I. Introduction....................................................... 165 II. FERC’s Authority to Require Open Access ........................... 167 A. Statutory Challenges: FPA §§ 205 and 206 ......................... 169 1. §§ 205 and 206 and Otter Tail Power
SWYGERT, Senior Circuit Judge. Three natural gas distribution companies, Northern Indiana Public Service Company (“NIPSCO”), Interstate Power Company (“Interstate”), and Iowa Gas Company (“Iowa Gas”), petition this court to review three orders1 and denials of petitions for rehearing of those orders2 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“the Commission”) that rel
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governorspublic domain
PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 603 U. S. Part 1 Pages 799–865 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT July 1, 2024 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requ
FCC v. Consumers' Researchpublic domain
PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 606 U. S. Part 2 Pages 656–747 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 27, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondopublic domain
PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 603 U. S. Part 1 Pages 369–479 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 28, 2024 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are
Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies v. Federal Communications Commission, Rochester Telephone Corporation, Intervenorspublic domain
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SENTELLE. SENTELLE, Circuit Judge: Local telephone exchange companies (“LECs”) petition for review of two orders of the Federal Communications Commission, promulgated in an informal rulemaking, that require the LECs to set aside a portion of their central offices for occupation and use by competitive access pr
Boston Edison Co. v. United Statespublic domain
OPINION AND ORDER1 LETTOW, Judge. INTRODUCTION This litigation stems from the lack of performance by the Department of Energy (“DOE”) of its statutory and contractual obligations to collect spent nuclear fuel from the Pilgrim nuclear power station in Plymouth, Massachusetts. In separate suits, both the buyer and the seller of the Pilgrim station have sought