Austin Public Utility Attorney
Austin Public Utility Lawyer Find out more about us News & Events Publications Contact Us

Public Utilities

[10/13] Montana Consumer Counsel v. FERC
In a petition for review of an order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) adopting a regulatory policy that allowed sellers of wholesale electricity to file "market-based" rates, petition is denied where the policy does not exceed the FERC's authority as conferred by the Federal Power Act.

[08/25] City of Palmdale v. Palmdale Water District
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court finding that defendant had adopted a new water rate structure consistent with the constitutional requirements of Proposition 218, judgment is reversed where defendant failed to satisfy its burden to establish that its new water rate structure complies with the mandates of Prop. 218, including the proportionality requirement that no fee or charge imposed upon any person or parcel as an incident of property ownership shall exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.

[08/23] Southern California Edison Co. v. US
In a dispute involving the proper measure of damages related to the handling of spent nuclear fuels produced at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where certain indirect overhead costs incurred by plaintiff can be included in plaintiff's damages calculations.

[08/15] Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd.
In a dispute arising from an administrative mandamus proceeding challenging defendant's issuance of a cooling water intake permit to real-parties-in-interest, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where: 1) it had jurisdiction over mandamus action; 2) it properly denied mandamus after determining that the additional evidence and analysis considered by the Board on remand supported the Board's reaffirmed finding; and 3) the Board properly utilized a "wholly disproportionate" cost-benefit standard, to conclude that the subject, existing cooling water intake design, as upgraded to accommodate plant expansion, reflected the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.

[08/04] Ames v. Public Utilities Commission
In a Public Utilities Code section 454.5(b)(9)(C) dispute challenging the defendant's approval of certain budget proposals by real parties in interest, decisions of the defendant are affirmed where it acted according to law and the findings in the decisions are supported by substantial evidence.

[08/03] Ames v. Public Utilities Commission (S. California Edison Co.)
In a petition for review of decisions concerning aspects of a utility rate approval process on the ground that the defendant erred by approving certain revenue allocation and rate design settlement agreements submitted by real party in interest, decisions of the defendant are affirmed where petitioner's arguments that the effect of the approved agreements is to unreasonably flatten electricity rates for large power customers by reducing the rate differential between peak and non-peak hours, and that a commissioner should have been disqualified from participation in the pertinent proceedings fail.

[07/05] The Ponderosa Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
In a challenge to defendant's allocation of certain share proceeds to the ratepayers, determination of the defendant is reversed where it erred in allocating both purchased share proceeds and the patronage share proceeds to the ratepayers.

[06/29] National Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District
In a Clean Air Act dispute, 42 U.S.C. section 7409(a), arising from a charge that defendant, pursuant to Sections 7503(a)(1)(A) and 7503(c), deposited invalid credits into its offset accounts and continues to distribute these credits, judgment of the district court dismissing action is affirmed where court did not err in determining that it lacked jurisdiction over the alleged violations, nor did it err in concluding that the plaintiff otherwise failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

[06/24] Dairyland Power Cooperative v. United States
In a dispute concerning damages for defendant's breach of its obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where court properly awarded damages based on plaintiff's exchange model, indirect costs, as well as the discounting of plaintiff's damages, but reversed where court awarded mitigation damages for the investment in a private fuel storage venture.

[06/20] American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut
In a consolidated case where two groups of plaintiffs files suit against the same five major electric power companies, claiming their emission of carbon dioxide gas and other greenhouse gases and their impact on global climate change substantially and unreasonably interfered with public rights, in violation of the federal common law of interstate nuisance, or, in the alternative, of state tort law, rulings by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are: 1) affirmed where the court properly exercised jurisdiction; but 2) reversed where the Clean Air Act and the EPA action the Act authorizes displace any federal common-law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants.

[06/15] LS Starrett Comp. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm.
In a petition for review of two orders of the FERC requiring petitioner to seek licensing pursuant to Section 23(b) of the Federal Power Act if it proceeded with certain proposed changes to its hydroelectric generating facility project, 16 U.S.C. section 817(1), determination of the FERC is affirmed where orders were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

[05/18] New Jersey Environmental Federation v. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
In a petition for review of three decisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granting a license renewal, the determination of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board affirming grant is uphled where petitioners' challenge, on the grounds that the Board and the NRC committed various procedural errors and failed to make the safety findings required to issue a renewed license, are without merit.

[05/10] Elk Hills Power, LLC v. State Bd. Equalization
In an action for refund of property taxes and for declaratory relief pursuant Revenue and Taxation Code section 5148(a), summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where defendant's unitary taxation determinations properly assessed plaintiff's power plant as a going concern, assuming the presence of intangible assets or rights necessary to put power plant to beneficial or productive use.

[03/29] In the Matter of National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp.
In a dispute involving the applicable legal standard for recouping from ratepayers environmental remediation costs, judgment of trial court is affirmed because in a review of management decision of a utility, the Department of Public Service bears the initial burden of showing that the utility may have acted imprudently based on what was known at the time the challenged decision was made.

[03/02] State of Oregon v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
In a petition seeking review of conditional authorizations by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) related to the construction and operation of natural gas facilities, the petition is dismissed as moot.

[01/18] Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC v. FERC
In a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's order accepting a proposed adjustment in a method for valuing various types of oil, the petition is granted where, in a proceeding covered by section 4412(b)(2) of the Motor Carrier Safety Reauthorization Act, the Commission identified its initial order, allowing a carrier-filed adjustment to take effect and setting the matter for hearing, as section 4412(b)(2)'s "first order," and this interpretation was inconsistent with the statute’s language and purpose.

[01/04] City of Idaho Falls v. FERC
In a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) rental fee schedule to set annual charges for hydropower projects occupying federal land, the petition is granted where FERC was required to go through notice and comment before it could impose charges according to the revised Forest Service methodology.

[12/28] Apache Valley Corp. v. FERC
In a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of a lease that would enable a larger, interstate pipeline (Midcontinent) to transport natural gas over a smaller, intrastate pipeline (Enogex), the petition is granted in part where FERC did not provide a reasoned explanation for its decision. However, the petition is denied in part where petitioner failed to raise its undue discrimination claim before FERC.

[12/28] Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC
In a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's decision declining to impose conditions on a utility's annual licenses so as to preserve the Klamath River's trout fishery, the petition is denied where: 1) the Commission quite plainly articulated and applied a standard in rejecting the Tribe's claims; and 2) the Commission's determination that the utility was not causing "unanticipated, serious impacts" had sufficient factual support in the record.

[12/21] Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. Nuclear Reg. Comm.
In a petition for review of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's denial of an exemption from the regulatory requirement that licensees have a tangible net worth at least 10 times the current decommissioning cost estimate of its licensed facility, the petition is granted where the Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision.

[12/10] Transmission Agency of N. Cal. v. FERC
In petitions for review of two Federal Energy Regulatory Commission orders conditionally approving the California Independent System Operator (CAISO)'s proposal to create an Integrated Balancing Authority Area (IBAA) by combining the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and the Turlock Irrigation District for the purpose of pricing transactions, the petitions are denied where 1) neither the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Bonneville nor the D.C. Circuit's opinion in TANC precluded the Commission from asserting jurisdiction over the IBAA proposal; and 2) because section 5 of the agreement defined the scope of the agreement to govern only the joint operation of the three power lines comprising the California-Oregon Intertie, and section 8.4 was properly read in light of section 5, the Commission reasonably concluded that the agreement only prohibited the parties to the agreement from charging each other for unscheduled use of another's lines associated with parallel flows and did not reach the IBAA proposal, which concerned the CAISO's ability to set rates within its own market.