18 C.F.R. § 385.716

Reopening (Rule 716)

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

(a) General rule. To the extent permitted by law, the presiding officer or the Commission may, for good cause under paragraph (c) of this section, reopen the evidentiary record in a proceeding for the purpose of taking additional evidence.

(b) By motion. (1) Any participant may file a motion to reopen the record.

(2) Any motion to reopen must set forth clearly the facts sought to be proven and the reasons claimed to constitute grounds for reopening.

(3) A participant who does not file an answer to any motion to reopen will be deemed to have waived any objection to the motion provided that no other participant has raised the same objection.

(c) By action of the presiding officer or the Commission. If the presiding officer or the Commission, as appropriate, has reason to believe that reopening of a proceeding is warranted by any changes in conditions of fact or of law or by the public interest, the record in the proceeding may be reopened by the presiding officer before the initial or revised initial decision is served or by the Commission after the initial decision or, if appropriate, the revised initial decision is served.

[Order 225, 47 FR 19022, May 3, 1982, as amended by Order 375, 49 FR 21316, May 21, 1984]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Sfpp Lp v. Ferc, 967 F.3d 788 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sfpp Lp v. Ferc, 967 F.3d 788 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “” 18 C.F.R. § 385.716 (c). Changes always occur after closing the record, so such discretion “is reserved for extraordinary circumstances.”

Cities of Campbell & Thayer, Missouri v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Arkansas Power & Light Co., Intervenor, 770 F.2d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “The petitioners subsequently moved under Rule 716 of the Commission’s revised procedural rules, 18 C.F.R. § 385.716 (1984), to reopen the record to receive the testimony.”

Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 337 F.3d 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “See 18 C.F.R. § 385.716 (allowing FERC to reopen the record if "warranted by any changes in conditions of fact or of law or by the public interest”); see also Eastern Carolinas Broad.”

N. Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 782 F.2d 730 (7th Cir. 1986). “We also agree with the Commission that it did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant Interstate’s motion to reopen the record underlying the November 4, 1983 order to consider the 1984-85 entitlements nominations as a basis for reconsidering the new rate design for…”

Cities of Anaheim, Riverside, Banning, Colton, & Azusa, California v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 941 F.2d 1234 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “The Commission acted within this broad discretion here because it addressed criteria relevant to reopening the record — the timing of the request and the opportunity afforded the Cities to explore the issue at any point before or during the Phase II hearing. We also uphold the…”

Stingray Pipeline Co., L.L.C. v. FERC, 124 F.4th 19 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “18 C.F.R. § 385.716 (c). It merely asked that the condition be removed.”

Nevada Irrigation Dist. v. FERC (D.C. Cir. 2025). “270, 278 (1987) (cleaned up); see also 18 C.F.R. § 385.716 (a), (c). No such abuse occurred here.”

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.