Occidental Permian Ltd. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 673 F.3d 1024

Tres Amigas sought negotiated rate authority for a New Mexico interconnection project designed to tie together three U.S. electric grids, enabling cross-grid power transfers.
Tres Amigas is an interconnection facility, not a standalone transmission service provider with its own customers or preexisting network.
FERC granted Tres Amigas negotiated rate authority in March 2010 over Occidental’s objections; rehearing was denied in September 2010.
Occidental intervened, protested, and argued Tres Amigas failed Chinook criteria by having captive customers or monopoly power and bearing less than full project risk.
The court first must determine standing before addressing merits; standing requires concrete, actual or imminent injury that is traceable to the agency action and redressable by the court.
Occidental’s asserted injuries—costs to neighboring utilities, higher rates to Occidental’s subsidiaries, potential increased competition—were deemed speculative or not yet caused by the agency’s orders, and thus insufficient for standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Occidental have standing to challenge FERC orders?	Occidental contends it has concrete, imminent injuries from future rate decisions and connections.	FERC and Tres Amigas argue the injuries are speculative and not yet caused by the orders.	No standing; petition dismissed for lack of injury in fact

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (constitutional standing requires concrete injury)
Public Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cnty. v. FERC, 272 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (irreducible minimum of standing)
Commuter Rail Div. of Reg'l Transp. Auth. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 608 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (injury must be traceable to agency action and redressable)
New York Reg'l Interconnect v. FERC, 634 F.3d 581 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (speculative fear of future rate consequences not injury)
Illinois Commerce Comm'n v. FERC, 576 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2009) (unreasonableness requires demonstrated benefit-cost relation)
Environmental Action v. FERC, 996 F.2d 401 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (cognizable injury requires concrete numbers/limitations)
Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. v. FERC, 616 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (standing requires ability to challenge future rate determinations)
DEK Energy Co. v. FERC, 248 F.3d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (showing actual impact, not speculative reliance on future events)
Sherley v. Sebelius, 610 F.3d 69 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (injury must be actual or imminent, not speculative)