West Deptford Energy, LLC v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
766 F.3d 10
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Federal Power Act requires utility rates to be filed with FERC and publicly available, ensuring openness and consistency.
- Filed rate doctrine prohibits charging rates other than those on file with FERC for rates subject to jurisdiction.
- This case asks whether the final negotiated rate or the rate at the start of negotiations governs when multiple rates were filed.
- West Deptford argues Commission uses the rate on finalization; PJM argues it may pick a rate case-by-case.
- PJM’s tariff revisions (2008) changed cost-allocation for prior upgrades, including a five-year look-back, impacting West Deptford.
- West Deptford sought to offset $10 million charges with auction revenue rights already received by earlier holders of the upgrade.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Commission properly apply the superseded tariff under the filed rate doctrine? | West Deptford contends the old tariff governed since filed after queue entry. | PJM contends case-by-case application allows superseded tariff consequences. | Remanded for explanation; not properly justified. |
| Did the notice requirement in 824d(d) plainly state the August 1, 2008 effective date and its scope? | West Deptford argues the notice did not plainly apply to all queues and agreements. | PJM argues the transmittal letter satisfied filing requirements. | Remanded for reasoned explanation; notice not adequately addressed. |
| Does case-by-case tariff interpretation depart from precedent requiring on-file tariffs govern on execution or filing date? | West Deptford argues departure from precedent without adequate justification. | Commission relies on flexible approach to ensure efficiency. | Remanded; failure to justify departure from precedent. |
| Should West Deptford receive an offset for auction revenue rights already exercised by Marcus Hook/Liberty Electric? | Offset the $10 million by rights previously earned by others; double payment avoided. | Rights transfer mechanics would govern; offset not ripe or supported by tariff. | Remanded to address offsets with adequate explanation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Public Utils. Comm’n v. FERC, 254 F.3d 250 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (notice exception for tariff-based formula rates.)
- Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 897 F.2d 570 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (notice exception limits; tariffs with formulas may be filed.)
- NSTAR Elec. & Gas Corp. v. FERC, 481 F.3d 794 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (applies filed rate doctrine and deference to FERC interpretation.)
- Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. FERC, 347 F.3d 964 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (tariff openness, consistency, and reasoned decision-making.)
- Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc. (MISO III), 125 FERC ¶ 61,277 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (tariff changes and interconnection agreements must align with new rules.)