18 C.F.R. § 385.207
Petitions (Rule 207)
(a) General rule. A person must file a petition when seeking:
(1) Relief under subpart I, J, or K of this part;
(2) A declaratory order or rule to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty;
(3) Action on appeal from a staff action, other than a decision or ruling of a presiding officer, under Rule 1902;
(4) A rule of general applicability; or
(5) Any other action which is in the discretion of the Commission and for which this chapter prescribes no other form of pleading.
(b) Declarations of intent under the Federal Power Act. For purposes of this part, a declaration of intent under section 23(b) of the Federal Power Act is treated as a petition for a declaratory order.
(c) Except as provided in § 381.302(b), each petition for issuance of a declaratory order must be accompanied by the fee prescribed in § 381.302(a).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: In Re Am. Rivers, 372 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
In Re Am. Rivers, 372 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “Both of FERC’s assertions are founded on fundamental misunderstandings; the former of the law, the latter of the legal issue before us. FERC’s insistence that it is not obligated to address a petition filed under one of its own regulations allowing requests for discretionary…”
Exelon Wind 1, L.L.C. v. Donna Nelson, et a, 766 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2014). “18 C.F.R. § 385.207 (a) (interpreting enforcement authority under the Federal Power Act); see 16 U.”
Town of Norwood, Massachusetts v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, New England Power Co., Intervenor, 217 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2000). “3d at 398, but also, in an effort to shorten the period of liability, Norwood petitioned FERC in April 1999 for a declaratory order, 18 C.F.R. § 385.207 (1999), that its contract with New England Power had terminated on October 31, 1998, and that New England Power therefore had…”
California Trout, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n S. California Edison Co., 313 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2002). “18 C.F.R. § 385.207 (a)(5). Because such a petition gives the Commission the same opportunity as- a request for rehearing to address grounds subsequently raised .”
Gulf Power Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Florida Pub. Utils. Co., Intervenor, 983 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1993). “See also 18 C.F.R. § 385.207 (a) (initially appearing at 47 Fed.”
Pngts Shippers' Grp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 592 F.3d 132 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “” 18 C.F.R. § 385.207 (a)(2). PNGTS filed such a petition in 2008 in view of several orders by FERC addressing the construction of two pipelines.”
Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Babbitt, 61 F. Supp. 2d 520 (W.D. La. 1999). “18 C.F.R. § 385.207 (a)(2). Shell argues that, effective April 1, 1994, FERC approved a tariff published by Shell for the Auger pipeline.”
Torch Operating Co. v. Babbitt, 172 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2001). “The defendants respond that plaintiffs would not be required to petition FERC under § 343, but rather under 18 C.F.R. § 385.207 (a)(2) which allows for a declaratory judgment from FERC in order to “terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty.”
Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 967 F. Supp. 1166 (D. Ariz. 1997). “See 18 C.F.R. § 385.207 (a)(5) (providing for the petitioning of any action which is in the discretion of the Commission and for which the Code of Federal Regulations prescribes no other form of pleading); United States Dept, of Interior v.”
United Power, Inc. v. FERC, 49 F.4th 554 (D.C. Cir. 2022). “Tri-State then petitioned the FERC for issuance of a declaratory order, see 18 C.F.R. § 385.207 (a)(2), stating that (1) Tri-State was now subject to the FERC’s jurisdiction because it was no longer “wholly owned” by non-jurisdictional entities, and (2) the FERC has exclusive…”
Am. Rivers v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 170 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 1999). “Petitioners filed their petition, styled “Petition to Initiate Consultation Under the Endangered Species Act,” pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.207 (a)(5), on November 21, 1997.”
Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 747 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “7 (c) (1981) (amended and recodified at 18 C.F.R. § 385.207 (2) (1984)). It is a comically irrelevant response to Intratex, a marketer of natural gas, to say “we agree that you can obtain this gas without relinquishing your exemption from federal regulation, but we express no…”
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.