Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Illinois Commerce Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

756 F.3d 556 (2014)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

Illinois Commerce Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

756 F.3d 556 (2014)

Facts

PJM Interconnection (PJM) was a regional transmission organization that was responsible for operating the electric grid in a region spanning states from Virginia to Michigan. The region was divided into two subregions, the western utilities and the eastern utilities. Generally, the power plants in the western region were located closer to customers than the power plants in the eastern region. When PJM planned the construction of new, higher-voltage 500 kilovolt (kV) transmissions lines in the eastern region, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (defendant) had to approve a method for allocation of costs among PJM’s member utilities. Ultimately, FERC issued an order that provided for a postage-stamp cost-allocation method. FERC determined that the cost allocated to a utility would be independent of the distance that electricity traveled over transmission lines, like how a postage stamp costs the same for all letters regardless of distance. The court of appeals set aside FERC’s initial order and remanded the matter back to FERC. On remand, FERC expressed the difficulty of estimating the benefits to the western utilities of new 500 kV lines in the eastern region. FERC estimated some of the benefits of the new transmission lines, but it did not provide any sources of evidence or analysis in its order. Nor did FERC conduct a cost-benefit analysis or make a finding as to why a cost-benefit analysis was impracticable and why, because of that impracticability, allocating costs equally based on electricity sales was reasonable. FERC simply determined that new transmission lines would provide a broad range of benefits throughout the PJM region, like reduced congestion, reduced outages, reduced capacity-reserve requirements, and reduced electricity losses. FERC issued an order again using the postage-stamp cost-allocation method. However, FERC ignored the fact that reduced outages and reduced electricity losses did not benefit western utilities as much as eastern utilities and failed to justify treating the benefits as equivalent in its order. The Illinois Commerce Commission and western-utility members of PJM (plaintiffs) filed petitions for review of FERC’s order.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)

Dissent (Cudahy, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership