18 C.F.R. § 385.217

Summary disposition (Rule 217)

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Applicability. This section applies to:

(1) Any proceeding, or any part of a proceeding, while the Commission is the decisional authority; and

(2) Any proceeding, or part of a proceeding, which is set for hearing under subpart E.

(b) General rule. If the decisional authority determines that there is no genuine issue of fact material to the decision of a proceeding or part of a proceeding, the decisional authority may summarily dispose of all or part of the proceeding.

(2) If a decisional authority, other than the Commission, is considering summary disposition of a proceeding, or part of a proceeding, in the absence of a motion for summary disposition by a participant, the decisional authority will grant the participants an opportunity to comment on the proposed disposition prior to any summary disposition, unless, for good cause shown, the decisional authority provides otherwise.

(3) If, prior to setting a matter for hearing, the Commission is considering summary disposition of a proceeding or part of a proceeding in the absence of a motion for summary disposition by any participant and the Commission determines that notice and comment on summary disposition are practicable and necessary, the Commission may notify the participants and afford them an opportunity to comment on any proposed summary disposition.

(d) Disposition. (1)(i) If a decisional authority, other than the Commission, summarily disposes of an entire proceeding, the decisional authority will issue an initial decision for the entire proceeding.

(ii) Except as provided under paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section, a decisional authority, other than the Commission, which summarily disposes of part of a proceeding may:

(A) Issue a partial initial decision; or

(B) Postpone issuing an initial decision on the summarily disposed part and combine it with the initial decision on the entire proceeding or other appropriate part of the proceeding.

(iii) If the decisional authority, other than the Commission, summarily disposes of part of a proceeding and such disposition requires the filing of new tariff or rate schedule sheets or sections, the decisional authority will issue an initial decision on that part of the proceeding.

(2) Any initial decision issued under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is considered an initial decision issued under subpart G of this part, except that the following rules do not apply: Rule 704 (rights of participants before initial decision), Rule 705 (discretion of presiding officer before initial decision), Rule 706 (initial and reply briefs before initial decision), Rule 707 (oral argument before initial decision), and Rule 709 (other types of decisions).

[Order 225, 47 FR 19022, May 3, 1982; Order 225-A, 47 FR 35956, Aug. 18, 1982, as amended by Order 714, 73 FR 57538, Oct. 3, 2008]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1984–2019 · leading case: Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Allegheny Elec. Coop., Inc., Intervenors, 810 F.2d 1168 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Allegheny Elec. Coop., Inc., Intervenors, 810 F.2d 1168 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “See 18 C.F.R. § 385.217 (1986) (summary disposition procedure).”

Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 35 F.3d 600 (1st Cir. 1994). “, 1994 WL 145508 , at *1, 1994 FERC LEXIS 757, at *3 (April 26, 1994) (applying 18 C.F.R. § 385.217 ); United States v. Scotto Bros.”

Friends of the Cowlitz & Cpr-Fish, City of Tacoma, Ferc Proj. Intervenor v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 253 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2002). “” 18 C.F.R. § 385.217 (b) (2000). 12 Given that the allegations in the petitioners’ complaint raise material issues of fact that would, if proven true, amount to license violations, we hold that the FERC plainly erred in summarily disposing of the complaint.”

Vermont Dep't of Pub. Serv. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Vermont Elec. Power Co., Intervenor, 817 F.2d 127 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “1969)); 18 C.F.R. § 385.217 (b) (1986). Without evidence of an abuse of discretion, we defer to an agency’s determination that a controversy raises no such issues.”

State of Alaska v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Trans Alaska Pipeline Sys. (Taps Carriers), Petro Star Inc., Intervenors, 980 F.2d 761 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “See 18 C.F.R. § 385.217 . The owners argued that the 1985 agreement, which by its terms settled “all outstanding issues of dispute” between the parties, Settlement Agreement § 1-1 (June 28, 1985), precluded the State from objecting to the owners’ including in their rates any…”

State of Wisconsin v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Kimberly-Clark Corp. & N.E.W. Hydro, Inc., Intervenors, 104 F.3d 462 (D.C. Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “18 C.F.R. § 385.217 (c)(2). Wisconsin maintains that under this regulation it was entitled to an opportunity to comment on the Division Director’s proposed summary determinations before they were issued, and not simply a right to seek rehearing by FERC after the fact.”

Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Allegheny Elec. Coop., Inc., Intervenors, 730 F.2d 816 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “…issues in piecemeal fashion and order reduced rates reflecting the dollar impact of each individual issue."). See 18 C.F.R. § 385.217 (b) (1983).”

Kourouma v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 723 F.3d 274 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “” 18 C.F.R. § 385.217 (b). That rule does not run afoul of § 823b.”

El Paso Elec. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 201 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2000). “See 18 C.F.R. § 385.217 (b). FERC’s refusal to consider EPE’s evidence on this matter leaves the question open as to the existence of an issue of material fact warranting an evi-dentiary hearing.”

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Utils. Comm'n, City of New Symrna Beach, Florida, Intervenors, 88 F.3d 1239 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “Whether or not, in fight of our disposition today, the facts are sufficiently established so as to permit resolution of this case through FERC’s summary procedures, see Summary Disposition, 18 C.F.R. § 385.217 (1995), is a matter for the Commission to consider on remand.”

ANR Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 931 F.2d 88 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “There is no factual dispute as to what the accrued prepayments represent: ANR does not contest that it sought to include in its rate base over fifty million dollars in prepayments that it has not actually paid to its suppliers.”

Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Ferc (9th Cir. 2019). “1984); see 18 C.F.R. § 385.217 (b). In reviewing FERC’s decision that summary 2 The New Lease is defined as: “The provisions of the Supplemental Lease from the Navajo Tribe of Indians as lessors, which are applicable to the Four Corners Project, and under which the Participants,…”

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.