Industrial Energy Consumers of America v. FERC, 125 F.4th 1156

The case arose from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)'s grant of an "abandonment incentive" to ITC Midwest, LLC for a planned interstate electric transmission project crossing Iowa, allowing ITC to recover 100% of prudently incurred costs if the project was later abandoned for reasons out of their control.
Petitioners—associations of electricity consumers and purchasers—challenged the incentive, arguing ongoing state litigation over Iowa's Right of First Refusal law (which allowed ITC to build the project) rendered ITC's assignment and thus incentive eligibility uncertain.
The FERC's procedure required two stages for granting such incentives: a declaratory order establishing eligibility (the stage at issue), followed by a separate rate case to determine the amount and prudence of any recovery if the project is abandoned.
FERC denied the protest, finding eligibility for the incentive was consistent with precedent even amidst litigation uncertainty, and clarified that actual rate recovery and prudence of costs would be addressed later.
The main dispute before the D.C. Circuit was whether petitioners had standing to challenge the incentive at this preliminary stage, absent any current or imminent injury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III Standing at Incentive Approval Stage	Consumers may suffer higher rates if project abandoned and costs recovered; injury is 'self-evident'.	No imminent, concrete injury; potential harm is speculative and contingent on future events.	Petitioners lack standing; no imminent injury; case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether FERC’s actions prejudge future rate recovery	Granting incentive precludes future attacks on ITC's eligibility and evidence; causes collateral estoppel harm.	Prudence and cost recovery are not decided until a future proceeding; petitioners may challenge costs then.	No prejudgment; petitioners retain right to challenge at future stage; no harm now.
Effect of Pending State Litigation on Incentive	FERC did not account for Iowa ROFR litigation potentially voiding ITC’s entitlement; makes approval premature.	Litigation uncertainty does not preclude incentive award; eligibility can be resolved; actual impact will be addressed later.	Uncertainty does not bar incentive approval; speculative harm insufficient for standing.
Sufficiency of Association Standing	Petitioners’ groups cover affected ratepayers; have standing via their members.	Groups fail to identify specific, injured members; assertions are vague and insufficient.	No standing shown; associational standing not met in the absence of imminent injury.

Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (speculative future injuries do not satisfy Article III standing)
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (standing requires a concrete and imminent injury)
Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (allegations of possible future injury do not confer standing)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. FERC, 571 F.3d 1208 (interest in agency reasoning or estoppel effect insufficient for standing)
San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. FERC, 913 F.3d 127 (explaining two-step procedure for abandonment incentives and distinguishing between immediate and future impacts)
Kansas Corp. Comm’n v. FERC, 881 F.3d 924 (party must show specific adverse effect for standing, not just interest in proper application of law)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (injury in fact must be concrete and particularized)
Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (ripeness doctrine defined for determining judicial review of agency action)