Midland Power Cooperative v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 413 U.S. App. D.C. 258

Background

Gregory and Beverly Swecker operate a 65 kW wind generator on their Iowa farm qualified as a PURPA § 210 QF; Midland Power Cooperative is the local electric utility.
Dispute arose over Midland’s calculation of PURPA “avoided cost” rates; the Sweckers withheld retail payments, asserting Midland owed them more for QF sales.
Midland, after state approval, began disconnect procedures for nonpayment; disconnection severed both retail service and the interconnection used for Midland’s purchases from the QF.
The Sweckers petitioned FERC for expedited reconnection; FERC ordered Midland to “reconnect” and purchase from the QF and denied rehearing.
Midland and NRECA petitioned for review in this court, arguing appellate jurisdiction under FPA § 313(b) (or via PURPA § 210(h)); FERC did not contest appellate jurisdiction outright.
The D.C. Circuit concluded FERC’s order was the sort of § 210 action subject to the PURPA enforcement scheme in district court, and dismissed the petition for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court of appeals has jurisdiction under FPA § 313(b) to review FERC’s reconnect order	Midland: § 313(b) covers any party aggrieved by a FERC order, so appellate review is available	FERC/Midland (alternative): jurisdiction might exist via PURPA § 210(h) treating certain § 210 requirements as rules under the FPA	Held: No appellate jurisdiction. The Statutes at Large reading of § 313 limits review to orders under the Act, and § 210 is not part of that Act.
Whether PURPA § 210(h) converts FERC § 210 enforcement matters into FPA § 313(b) reviewable actions	Midland: § 210(h) makes § 210(f)(1) requirements "rules enforceable under the Federal Power Act," bringing orders within § 313(b)	FERC: § 210(h) applies to enforcement proceedings and does not make § 210 generally reviewable in the court of appeals; § 210(f)(1) is not applicable here	Held: Rejected. § 210(h) does not transform these § 210 orders into § 313(b) appellate matters; the enforcement scheme contemplates district-court actions.
Whether FERC’s order announced a general, rule-like pronouncement that could be reviewed on appeal	Midland: the reconnect order effectively creates a rule about disconnections and is therefore reviewable	FERC: the order was factual/adjudicative concerning these parties and did not purport to create a general rule; even if rulelike, enforcement belongs in district court	Held: Court found the order did not announce a general rule and, even if it did, precedent bars appellate review to avoid disrupting the PURPA enforcement scheme.
Whether the order was mandatory and subject to contempt/penalties (affecting jurisdiction)	Midland: the order’s command to "reconnect" could expose Midland to heavy FPA penalties, implying mandatory effect and appellate reviewability	FERC: the order lacked timelines, penalty language, and FERC treated it as within the ordinary PURPA enforcement framework (district-court enforcement)	Held: Court treated the order as declaratory/ non-enforcement in character and declined to resolve whether a truly mandatory, penalty-backed order would change jurisdiction; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Key Cases Cited

FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742 (Supreme Court) (discusses FERC authority and PURPA context)
United States Nat’l Bank of Oregon v. Independent Ins. Agents of America, Inc., 508 U.S. 439 (Supreme Court) (Statutes at Large control over conflicting U.S. Code wording)
Industrial Cogenerators v. FERC, 47 F.3d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (held PURPA § 210 enforcement is vested in district courts; limited appellate review)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. FERC, 117 F.3d 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (reaffirmed district-court enforcement scheme; declined appellate review even for rulelike orders)
New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. FERC, 117 F.3d 1473 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (held declaratory FERC § 210 pronouncements are not reviewable on appeal)