18 C.F.R. § 35.5
Rejection of material submitted for filing
(a) The Secretary, pursuant to the Commission's rules of practice and procedure and delegation of Commission authority, shall reject any material submitted for filing with the Commission which patently fails to substantially comply with the applicable requirements set forth in this part, or the Commission's rules of practice and procedure.
(b) A rate filing that fails to comply with this Part may be rejected by the Director of the Office of Energy Market Regulation pursuant to the authority delegated to the Director in § 375.307(a)(1)(ii) of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1971–1988 · leading case: Papago Tribal Util. Auth. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 628 F.2d 235 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Papago Tribal Util. Auth. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 628 F.2d 235 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “2d at 1346 ; see 18 C.F.R. § 35.5 (1979). Once it accepts a filing, FERC has the authority to suspend the new rates for up to five months, and to schedule a hearing to determine whether the rates are just and reasonable.”
Mun. Light Boards of Reading & Wakefield Massachusetts v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 450 F.2d 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1971). “The Commission had the authority to issue a regulation like 18 C.F.R. § 35.5 (supra note 3) for the rejection of filings that patently fail to establish substantial compliance with duly issued regulations.”
Boston Edison Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 856 F.2d 361 (1st Cir. 1988). “2d at 1110 ; see also 18 C.F.R. § 35.5 . Traditionally, summary rejection has been “used not to dispose of a matter on the merits but rather as a technique for calling on the filing party to put its papers in proper form and order.”
United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 707 F.2d 1507 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “” 18 C.F.R. § 35.5 . See Kentucky Utils. Co.”
City of Groton & Borough of Jewett City v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 584 F.2d 1067 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “§ 824d(d) (1970). The Commission in implementing the provision has required that numerous supporting exhibits accompany the filing of a change in rates, including a comparison of the quantity of service and revenues therefrom obtained under the new and superseded rate schedules,…”
Borough of Lansdale v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 494 F.2d 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1974). “” 18 C.F.R. § 35.5 . We have upheld .this provision as being within the Commission’s statutory powers.”
Papago Tribal Util. Auth. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 610 F.2d 914 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “There the Commission refused to resolve at the threshold a contention that a utility’s increase-filing contravened a prior understanding with the involved customer because it deemed that course unnecessary or improper. 174 U.”
Kentucky Utils. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 689 F.2d 207 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “” 18 C.F.R. § 35.5 . FERC “retains broad discretion” to determine the adequacy of a filing to satisfy the objective of affording notice to the Commission and the public.”
Cities of Anaheim, Riverside, Banning, Colton & Azusa v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 723 F.2d 656 (9th Cir. 1984). “1 When a utility files a new rate schedule with FERC (formerly the Federal Power Commission), the Commission can take one of three actions: 1) It can reject the filing outright, a prerogative not explicitly provided by statute, but assumed by FERC regulation, 18 C.F.R. § 35.5 ,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.