Legal Opinion
Andersen v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 23, 2014No. 12-72266Unpublished
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
Thomas Andersen petitions pro se for review of a decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) denying his request for rehearing. We deny the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.
I
We will not disturb a FERC decision unless it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or not in accordance with law.” The Steamboaters v. FERC, 759 F.2d 1382, 1388 (9th Cir.1985). “In determining whether an agency’s action is arbitrary or capricious, we must…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- The Steamboaters, an Oregon Non-Profit Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory, Commission, Kenneth Plumb, Secretary of Ferc, Winchester Water Control District, and Elektra Power Corporation, Winchester Water Control District and Elektra Power Corporation, Intervenors. Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Winchester Water Control District and Elektra Power Corporation, IntervenorsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Pacific Gas And Electric Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Eastern Niagara Public Power Alliance & Public Power Coalition v. Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2009