California Public Utilities Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
THOMAS, Chief Circuit Judge:
In this petition for review, we consider whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) arbitrarily and capriciously determined that Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) was eligible for an incentive adder for remaining a-member of the . California Independent System Operator Corporation (“Cal-ISO”) when state ■ law prevented PG&E’s departure without authorization. We conclude that it did, and we grant the petition.
I
Section 201 of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) gives FERC jurisdiction over the rates, terms, and conditions of…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Auer v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'nCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2019
- Julian v. Swift Transp. Co.District Court, D. Arizona · 2018
- Earth Island Inst. v. ElliottDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2018
- In re Application of Ohio Edison Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
- Cpuc v. FercCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2022
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.