From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
South Carolina Public Service Authority v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
762 F.3d 41 (2014)
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (defendant) issued Order No. 1000 to address concerns that the deficiencies in the existing electric-transmission-planning and cost-allocation processes would inhibit the construction of new electric-transmission facilities and adversely affect electricity rates. Specifically, FERC was concerned that insufficient planning for the future construction of transmission lines and the lack of methods for allocating the construction costs among those who would benefit from the construction would likely result in inadequate expansion of transmission capacity and, in turn, rates that were not just and reasonable. The final rule under Order No. 1000 required each electric-transmission provider (i.e., an entity that owned or operated a transmission line) to participate in both the regional-planning process for regional transmission facilities and, if applicable, the coordination of interregional transmission facilities. The final rule also mandated that transmission providers comply with specified regional cost-allocation principles, such as cost causation, which was a requirement that costs must be allocated roughly in proportion to benefits. The final rule required transmission providers to include their methods for cost allocation in their open-access transmission tariff (OATT) rate filings with FERC, but the rule did not dictate exactly how to allocate or pay for costs. The South Carolina Public Service Authority, other state regulatory agencies, transmission providers, regional transmission organizations, and electric-industry trade associations (the challengers) (plaintiffs) challenged FERC’s authority to adopt the transmission-planning and cost-allocation reforms within the final rule. The challengers argued that FERC lacked the power to mandate transmission planning and that the cost-allocation requirements were arbitrary and capricious. FERC claimed that under § 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), it had authority to regulate transmission planning and cost allocation because both affected interstate wholesale rates.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
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
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.