Cases

Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. The Federal Power Act (FPA or Act), 41 Stat. 1063 , as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 791a et seq., authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) to regulate "the sale of electric

Justice SOTOMAYOR, concurring. I write separately to clarify my understanding of the pre-emption principles that should guide this Court's analysis of the Federal Power Act and that underpin its conclusion in these cases. The process through which consumers obtain energy stretches across state and federal regulatory domains. The Federal Power Act authorizes the States to regulate

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-1678 PNE ENERGY SUPPLY LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. EVERSOURCE ENERGY, a Massachusetts Voluntary Association; AVANGRID, INC., a New York Corporation, Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STAT

CHUTZ, J. Defendants-appellants, Talen's Marine & Fuel, LLC (Talen) and Martin Energy Services, LLC (MES), appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Apache Corporation (Apache), awarding a sum of money for duplicate payments Apache paid to defendants in conjunction with a fuel services contract. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF MONTANA, No. 23-3050 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 6:16-cv-00035- v. DLC TALEN MONTANA, LLC; NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION; UNITED OPINION STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION; UNITED STATE

OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: These appeals are the latest in a series of petitions that stem from the energy crisis in California and other western states in 2000 and 2001. The key issue we consider is the applicability of the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, which requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) to “presume that the rate set out in a freely negotiated wholesale-energy contra

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: Regional Transmission Organizations are non-profit entities that oversee the transmission of electricity from generators to utilities. Under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and FERC’s regulations, Regional Transmission Organizations file their proposed rate schemes with FERC. 16 U.S.C. § 824d(c); 18 C.F.R. § 35.34(j)(l)(iii). Section 205 allows FERC

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 6, 2025 Decided February 10, 2026 No. 25-1091 AFFIRMED ENERGY, LLC, PETITIONER v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT MONITORING ANALYTICS, LLC, AND PJM INTERCONNECTION, LLC, INTERVENORS On Petition f

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1229-20 IN THE MATTER OF THE VERIFIED PETITION OF THE RETAIL ENERGY SUPPLY ASSOCIATION SEEKING APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION WITHDRAWAL OF THE BOARD STAFF'S CEASE AND DESIST November 18, 2021 AN

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-21-00098-CV Luminant Energy Company LLC, Appellant v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Appellee DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS PROJECT NO. 51617 OPINION In this direct appea

Easterbrook, Circuit Judge. *521Regional transmission organizations manage the interstate grid for electricity. See, e.g., Benton County Wind Farm LLC v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. , 843 F.3d 298 (7th Cir. 2016) ; MISO T

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 18-1995 SCOTT BREIDING; AMY POLLUTRO; MIKAELA ORTSTEIN-OTERO; BENJAMIN ROSE; MARGARET LEWIS; RICHARD LEWIS; ERIC LONG; PETER STEERS; BRADFORD KEITH; JOHN ODUM; DAVID LEIGHTON; DONNA CORDEIRO; JANICE ANGELILLO; ANNA MARIA FORNINO; MICHELE CASSETTA; JUDY CENNAMI, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellants, ERIK ALLEN; NICHOLAS COR

HICKS, J., dissenting. Because I agree with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that Eversource's proposal "is fundamentally inconsistent with the purposes of restructuring," I respectfully dissent. The majority disagrees with the PUC's determination that "the overriding purpose of the Restructuring Statute," RSA chapter 374-F, "is to introduce competition to the generation of electricity," and

Appellate Case: 25-3046 Document: 124-1 Date Filed: 07/06/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 6, 2026

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2024 ME 60 Docket: PUC-23-388 Argued May 8, 2024 Decided: August 8, 2024 Revised: September 17, 2024 Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, HORTON, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ. INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMER GROUP v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION et al. LAWRENCE, J. [¶1] Indust

OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: These petitions call to mind the classic lyric: “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.” 1 Idaho Power Company and its subsidiary, IDA-CORP, Inc., (collectively, IDACORP), in an effort to conclude their role in the now-epic Federal Energy

Millett, Circuit Judge: *1226 The weather conditions giving rise to this case may have been out of the ordinary, but the legal principles controlling its resolution are decidedly routine. In January 2014, a period of exceptionally cold temperatures, commonly referred to as a "Polar Vort

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0011p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ ENERGY MICHIGAN, INC.; ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESSES │ AD

MEMORANDUM OPINION KIM R. GIBSON; UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On December 31, 2015, Leonard Cessna and George Work filed this case in the Court of .Common Pleas of Blair County against REA Energy Cooperative, Inc. REA is an electric cooperative of which Cessna and Work (“Plaintiffs”) are current and former members, respectively — meaning REA is and was their electricity supplier. Plaintiffs seek to repre

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit