Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Boston Edison Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided December 1, 2000No. 00-1055Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWallace, Circuit Judge

I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority opinions analysis of the effect the termination agreements between Boston Edison and Montaup have on refunds ordered by FERC.

I

The majority opinion states, “the refunds awarded to the buyers by FERC are not rights under the agreement at all; indeed, if the agreements were respected, there would be no refunds. It is only because FERC has overridden the agreements and awarded refunds under the statute that refund claims might exist.” [Majority Opinion at 70] However, it is equally clear that without the original contractual…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Albert E. BIVINGS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API