City of Girard v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
790 F.2d 919 (1986)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
The City of Girard, Kansas (plaintiff) intervened in a hearing conducted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (defendant) regarding a rate schedule filed by Kansas Gas and Electric (KGE). Girard used electricity that it generated and purchased the rest of the electricity that it needed from KGE as a partial-requirements customer. The rate that KGE charged Girard was filed with and approved by FERC. At some point, Girard’s power generation ceased. Girard needed to purchase all its electricity from KGE as a result. The rate that KGE charged full-requirements customers was lower than the rate that it charged partial-requirements customers. The contract between Girard and KGE that was set at the partial-requirements rate expired on July 31, 1983. KGE continued to charge Girard the partial-requirements rate while the two parties negotiated a new contract over the course of four months. Eventually, KGE filed a new rate schedule with FERC that applied to Girard. Girard intervened, challenged the new rate, and argued that the new, full-requirements rate should be retroactive back to August 1, 1983. FERC rejected Girard’s claims and approved the new rate schedule. Girard brought an action, challenging FERC’s order, which denied Girard’s claim that KGE’s rate filing should be applied retroactively. The matter was appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McGowan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
