Public Utilities

[08/17] Util. Consumers' Action Network v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of the State of California

[08/10] Rock Energy Coop. v. Village of Rockton
In a non-profit, consumer-owned utility company's suit against a village seeking a declaratory judgment, claiming that the village does not have proper authority to purchase or condemn assets used by natural gas and electric utilities in the area, district court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed where: 1) the chance of future eminent domain proceedings in this case is too remote to support the claim that plaintiff is trying to litigate; and 2) state court's conclusion that, in litigation between the same parties, that the MOU agreement is unenforceable is entitled to preclusive effect under Illinois law, and to the extent that the MOU has a role to play in this case, it includes a clear choice-of-forum clause directing all litigation to the state court.

[08/10] TNA Merchant Projs., Inc. v. FERC
In petitions for review of two orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), holding that the rate schedule petitioner proposed for supplying reactive power to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) constituted a "changed rate" that was subject to the suspension and refund provisions of section 205(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. section 824d(e), the petitions are granted where the Commission failed to respond to petitioner's argument that its rate could not be classified as "changed" since it was not previously filed.

[08/05] Henderson v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.

[07/26] Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. v. FERC
In a petition for review of four orders issued between 2006 and 2008 in which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the Independent System Operator's new market design for California's electricity market, the petition is denied where: 1) FERC's conclusion about the benefits of marginal loss pricing did not conflict with or depart from its 2004 guidance order; 2) FERC's conclusion about the benefits of marginal loss pricing was supported by substantial evidence; and 3) FERC reasonably responded to the argument that zonal aggregate pricing would prevent the California ISO from realizing the benefits of locational marginal pricing.

[07/26] Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P'ship v. Salazar
In an action by environmental organizations filed for declaratory and injunctive relief arguing that the Bureau of Land Management's Record of Decision, its accompanying environmental impact statement (EIS), and subsequent drilling permits for a natural gas field violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) petitioners failed to cite evidence demonstrating that the environmental impact of previously drilled wells exceeded the impact contemplated by the Great Divide resource management plan; 2) the Bureau was not required to employ the best, most cutting-edge methodologies in preparing its EIS; and 3) the Bureau did not violate NEPA by concluding that the projects were too preliminary to meaningfully estimate their cumulative impacts in the Atlantic Rim Project EIS.

[07/26] State of North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. Tennessee Valley Auth.
District court's entry of an injunction requiring immediate installation of emissions controls at four Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) electricity generating plants in Alabama and Tennessee is reversed and remanded where TVA's plants cannot logically be public nuisances under Alabama and Tennessee law where TVA is in compliance with EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the corresponding State Implementation Plan (SIPs), and the permits that implement them, as these standards impose more stringent requirements than source state nuisance law.

[07/19] HUB City Solid Waste Serv., Inc. v. City of Compton
In a waste management service provider's breach of contract suit against a city, trial court's grant of the city's motion that it did not breach the franchise agreement when terminating it and judgment for the city in its cross-complaint seeking to void the contract and disgorge funds from the plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) there was no error in the trial court's application of the alter ego doctrine to hold the individual accountable for the company's actions as he acted within his official capacity in advising the city on its waste collection operations; 2) there was sufficient evidence showing that the campaign contributions and jobs for the council members' relatives were provided in return for the council members' approval of the franchise agreements with the company; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the introduction of evidence about the individual's prior involvement with payments to public officials in connection with government contracts.

[07/16] Blumenthal v. FERC
In a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's order approving a utility company's executive compensation, the petition is denied where: 1) petitioner provided no good reason for the court to create a new due process right to an evidentiary hearing where none existed; and 2) even if the court would have used a different comparison group in determining the executive's compensation, the court could not say that FERC’s decision to accept the utility's analysis was unreasonable.

[07/08] Ruston v. Town Bd.
In a "class of one" equal protection action by property owners, who were denied sewer hookups for their proposed subdivision, against a village, the Town Board, and the Town Planning Board (and individual members of the Boards), dismissal of the action is affirmed where plaintiffs failed to allege specific examples of the Town's proceedings, let alone applications that were made by persons similarly situated, and thus failed to make out an Equal Protection claim.

[06/24] Muscarello v. Ogle County Bd. of Comm'rs
In plaintiff's suit against multiple defendants asserting various claims based on the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, Illinois statutes, and the common law, arsing from the county's decision to amend its zoning ordinances to allow special permits for the construction of windmills used to generate power, and in particular, the construction of 40 windmills adjacent to plaintiff's property, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's federal takings, equal protection, and due process claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; 2) plaintiff's state law trespass and nuisance claims are not ripe for review; 3) plaintiff has failed to avail herself of the opportunity to allege and support an independent basis of federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the other seven claims; and 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for an administrative stay.

[06/18] AEP Tex. N. Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd.
In an electric utility's petition for review of the Surface Transportation Board's denial of a portion of petitioner's petition requesting a recomputation of petitioner's cost of equity capital for the years 1998-2005, the petition is granted in part where the Board's particularly cursory analysis of the 2005 cost of equity estimates constituted arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking. However, the petition is denied in part where the fact that the Board did not agree that the changed circumstances warranted changing prior years' calculations did not by itself mean the Board acted arbitrarily or capriciously or failed to consider seriously petitioner's evidence.

[06/09] Porter Trust v. Rural Water Sewer & Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist.
In an action by landowners whose property was within the boundaries of the water and sewer district served by the defendant, seeking to de-annex the property from the defendant's district, a remand of the matter to state court is affirmed where, although the Logan County Board of County Commissioners exercised a judicial function in de-annexation proceedings, it was an administrative rather than a judicial entity.

[06/07] Greene v. Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation Dist.
In a property owner's suit challenging the election results of a passage of the flood control district's proposal of a storm drainage fee fund improvements intended to prevent flooding and flood damage, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and the judgment of the trial court denying plaintiff's election contest reinstated where: 1) the district conducted an election in accord with the literal language of article section 6(c) using ballots that were substantially similar to those authorized under section 4, and took measures to provide for ballot secrecy notwithstanding the fact that the ballots required the voters to disclose their identities; and 2) there is no other basis for invalidating the fee election at issue.

[06/01] Alabama v. N. Carolina
In an action by Florida and Tennessee against North Carolina seeking monetary sanctions under the terms of the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact (Compact), which was entered into by Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, the special master's order partially dismissing plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where 1) the terms of the Compact did not authorize the Commission administering the Compact to impose monetary sanctions against North Carolina; 2) North Carolina did not breach its contractual obligation to take -appropriate steps- toward the issuance of a waste disposal license; and 3) under Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (1983), the Commission-s claims were not barred by sovereign immunity so long as the Commission asserted the same claims and sought the same relief as the plaintiff States.

Back to Main Menu