16 U.S.C. § 824k
Orders requiring interconnection or wheeling
An order under section 824j of this title shall require the transmitting utility subject to the order to provide wholesale transmission services at rates, charges, terms, and conditions which permit the recovery by such utility of all the costs incurred in connection with the transmission services and necessary associated services, including, but not limited to, an appropriate share, if any, of legitimate, verifiable and economic costs, including taking into account any benefits to the transmission system of providing the transmission service, and the costs of any enlargement of transmission facilities. Such rates, charges, terms, and conditions shall promote the economically efficient transmission and generation of electricity and shall be just and reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. Rates, charges, terms, and conditions for transmission services provided pursuant to an order under section 824j of this title shall ensure that, to the extent practicable, costs incurred in providing the wholesale transmission services, and properly allocable to the provision of such services, are recovered from the applicant for such order and not from a transmitting utility’s existing wholesale, retail, and transmission customers.
If the Commission does not issue any order applied for under section 824i or 824j of this title, the Commission shall, by order, deny such application and state the reasons for such denial.
No order may be issued under this chapter which is inconsistent with any State law which governs the retail marketing areas of electric utilities.
With respect to an electric utility which is prohibited by Federal law from being a source of power supply, either directly or through a distributor of its electric energy, outside an area set forth in such law, no order issued under section 824j of this title may require such electric utility (or a distributor of such electric utility) to provide transmission services to another entity if the electric energy to be transmitted will be consumed within the area set forth in such Federal law, unless the order is in furtherance of a sale of electric energy to that electric utility: Provided, however, That the foregoing provision shall not apply to any area served at retail by an electric transmission system which was such a distributor on
Any order under section 824j of this title requiring provision of transmission services in whole or in part within ERCOT shall provide that any ERCOT utility which is not a public utility and the transmission facilities of which are actually used for such transmission service is entitled to receive compensation based, insofar as practicable and consistent with subsection (a), on the transmission ratemaking methodology used by the Public Utility Commission of Texas.
The TVA Act, referred to in subsec. (f)(1), means act May 18, 1933, ch. 32, 48 Stat. 58, known as the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, which is classified generally to chapter 12A (§ 831 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 831 of this title and Tables.
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936, referred to in subsec. (h)(2)(A), is act May 20, 1936, ch. 432, 49 Stat. 1363, which is classified generally to chapter 31 (§ 901 et seq.) of Title 7, Agriculture. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 901 of Title 7 and Tables.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992, referred to in subsec. (i)(2)(A)(III), (B)(i), is Pub. L. 102–486,
1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–486, § 722(1), added subsec. (a) and struck out former subsec. (a) which related to determinations by Commission.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–486, § 722(1), struck out subsec. (b) which required applicants for orders to be ready, willing, and able to reimburse parties subject to such orders.
Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 102–486, § 722(2), amended subsec. (e) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (e) related to utilization of interconnection or wheeling authority in lieu of other authority and limitation of Commission authority.
Subsecs. (g) to (k). Pub. L. 102–486, § 722(3), added subsecs. (g) to (k).
Nothing in amendment by Pub. L. 102–486 to be construed as affecting or intending to affect, or in any way to interfere with, authority of any State or local government relating to environmental protection or siting of facilities, see section 731 of Pub. L. 102–486, set out as a note under section 796 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. FERC, 113 F.4th 943 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. FERC, 113 F.4th 943 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “2776 , 2916–17 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h)). By contrast, section 111(e) of the Act provides that the Secretary of Energy must determine whether a resource plan would result in “higher or lower electricity costs to an electric utility’s ultimate consumers or to classes or…”
Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402 (1983). “*409 Section 212 of the FPA, 16 U. S. C. §824k (1976 ed., Supp. V), provides that an order approving an interconnection under § 210 may be issued only if the Commission determines that the interconnection is not likely to result in a reasonably ascertainable uncompensated loss…”
Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Commissioners v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Tenaska, Inc., Intervenors, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “Both sets of petitioners argue that the “At or Beyond” rule is inconsistent with FERC’s obligation to ensure efficient siting of facilities pursuant to § 212 of the Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824k, added by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.”
California Wholesale Elec. Antitrust Litig. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Dynegy Power Mktg., Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (S.D. Cal. 2003). “” 16 U.S.C. § 824k(e)(2). Plaintiff also argues that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Otter Tail Power Co.”
Gas v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 206 Cal. App. 4th 897 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “The City argues that the fifth declaration, which states PG&E is entitled to provide electricity to Ferry Building Investors and Ferry Building subtenants, is unauthorized because statutes such as the Federal Power Act (see 16 U.S.C.§ 824k(h)(2)) govern who can and cannot sell…”
Town of Norwood v. New England Power Co., 202 F.3d 408 (1st Cir. 2000). “Finally, Norwood contends that a savings provision added by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 16 U.S.C. § 824k(e)(2), somehow overrides the filed rate doctrine.”
Borough of Lansdale v. PP & L, INC., 426 F. Supp. 2d 264 (E.D. Pa. 2006). “” 16 U.S.C. § 824k. However, “by its terms this provision only refers to limited sections of the Federal Power Act, notably not including those that establish the rate filing requirements, 16 U.”
Illinois Landowners All., NFP v. Illinois Com. Comm'n, 2017 IL 121302 (Ill. 2017). “The FERC defines "eligible customers" broadly to include any buyer of transmission service, subject only to limitations contained in section 824k of the Federal Power Act ( 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h) (2012) ). ¶ 13 The FERC has approved a proposal from Rock Island to "pre-subscribe" up…”
Detroit Edison Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 334 F.3d 48 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “In essence, FERC claims that Midwest’s OATT does not exceed FPA § 201’s jurisdictional limits because it clearly comports with FPA § 212(h), 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h), which prohibits the Commission from ordering retail wheeling directly to an ultimate consumer.”
Greensboro Lumber Co. v. Georgia Power Co., 643 F. Supp. 1345 (N.D. Ga. 1986). “V), describe the procedure to be followed by the FERC when an electric utility, federal power marketing agency, cogenerator, or small power producer applies for an order requiring another such facility to make an interconnection____ Section 212 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 824k (1976…”
City Pub. Serv. Bd. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 9 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. App. 2000). “No order may be issued under this subsection unless the applicant has made a request for transmission services to the transmitting utility that would be the subject of such order at least 60 days prior to its *876 filing of an application for such order”) (emphasis added); see…”
Modesto Irrigation Dist. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 54 F. App'x 882 (9th Cir. 2002). “PG & E argues that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over claims such as Modesto’s, because FERC’s comprehensive regulatory authority by implication displaces the antitrust laws, particularly in view of the 1992 amendments granting FERC authority to order wholesale…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 824k(a) — 6 cases
Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Commissioners v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Tenaska, Inc., Intervenors, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “Both sets of petitioners argue that the “At or Beyond” rule is inconsistent with FERC’s obligation to ensure efficient siting of facilities pursuant to § 212 of the Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824k, added by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.”
Ass'n of Pub. Agency Customers, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 126 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1997).
Transmission Access Policy Study Grp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 638 F.2d 388 (2d Cir. 1980).
Transmission Access Policy Study Grp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
— 16 U.S.C. § 824k(c)(l) — 2 cases
Ass'n of Pub. Agency Customers, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 126 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1997).
New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 638 F.2d 388 (2d Cir. 1980).
— 16 U.S.C. § 824k(e) — 1 case
Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402 (1983). “*409 Section 212 of the FPA, 16 U. S. C. §824k (1976 ed., Supp. V), provides that an order approving an interconnection under § 210 may be issued only if the Commission determines that the interconnection is not likely to result in a reasonably ascertainable uncompensated loss…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 824k(e)(2) — 4 cases
California Wholesale Elec. Antitrust Litig. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Dynegy Power Mktg., Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (S.D. Cal. 2003). “” 16 U.S.C. § 824k(e)(2). Plaintiff also argues that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Otter Tail Power Co.”
Town of Norwood v. New England Power Co., 202 F.3d 408 (1st Cir. 2000). “Finally, Norwood contends that a savings provision added by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 16 U.S.C. § 824k(e)(2), somehow overrides the filed rate doctrine.”
Borough of Lansdale v. PP & L, INC., 426 F. Supp. 2d 264 (E.D. Pa. 2006). “” 16 U.S.C. § 824k. However, “by its terms this provision only refers to limited sections of the Federal Power Act, notably not including those that establish the rate filing requirements, 16 U.”
Modesto Irrigation Dist. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 54 F. App'x 882 (9th Cir. 2002). “PG & E argues that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over claims such as Modesto’s, because FERC’s comprehensive regulatory authority by implication displaces the antitrust laws, particularly in view of the 1992 amendments granting FERC authority to order wholesale…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h) — 6 cases
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. FERC, 113 F.4th 943 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “2776 , 2916–17 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h)). By contrast, section 111(e) of the Act provides that the Secretary of Energy must determine whether a resource plan would result in “higher or lower electricity costs to an electric utility’s ultimate consumers or to classes or…”
Illinois Landowners All., NFP v. Illinois Com. Comm'n, 2017 IL 121302 (Ill. 2017). “The FERC defines "eligible customers" broadly to include any buyer of transmission service, subject only to limitations contained in section 824k of the Federal Power Act ( 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h) (2012) ). ¶ 13 The FERC has approved a proposal from Rock Island to "pre-subscribe" up…”
Detroit Edison Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 334 F.3d 48 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “In essence, FERC claims that Midwest’s OATT does not exceed FPA § 201’s jurisdictional limits because it clearly comports with FPA § 212(h), 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h), which prohibits the Commission from ordering retail wheeling directly to an ultimate consumer.”
Illinois Landowners All., NFP v. Illinois Com. Comm'n, 2017 IL 121302 (Ill. 2018).
Modesto Irrigation Dist. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 54 F. App'x 882 (9th Cir. 2002). “PG & E argues that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over claims such as Modesto’s, because FERC’s comprehensive regulatory authority by implication displaces the antitrust laws, particularly in view of the 1992 amendments granting FERC authority to order wholesale…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h)(1) — 1 case
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. FERC, 113 F.4th 943 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “2776 , 2916–17 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h)). By contrast, section 111(e) of the Act provides that the Secretary of Energy must determine whether a resource plan would result in “higher or lower electricity costs to an electric utility’s ultimate consumers or to classes or…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h)(2) — 3 cases
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. FERC, 113 F.4th 943 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “2776 , 2916–17 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h)). By contrast, section 111(e) of the Act provides that the Secretary of Energy must determine whether a resource plan would result in “higher or lower electricity costs to an electric utility’s ultimate consumers or to classes or…”
Gas v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 206 Cal. App. 4th 897 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “The City argues that the fifth declaration, which states PG&E is entitled to provide electricity to Ferry Building Investors and Ferry Building subtenants, is unauthorized because statutes such as the Federal Power Act (see 16 U.S.C.§ 824k(h)(2)) govern who can and cannot sell…”
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. FERC (D.C. Cir. 2022).
— 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h)(2)(A) — 1 case
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. FERC, 113 F.4th 943 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “2776 , 2916–17 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h)). By contrast, section 111(e) of the Act provides that the Secretary of Energy must determine whether a resource plan would result in “higher or lower electricity costs to an electric utility’s ultimate consumers or to classes or…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h)(2)(B) — 1 case
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. FERC, 113 F.4th 943 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “2776 , 2916–17 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h)). By contrast, section 111(e) of the Act provides that the Secretary of Energy must determine whether a resource plan would result in “higher or lower electricity costs to an electric utility’s ultimate consumers or to classes or…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 824k(i)(l)(ii) — 1 case
Ass'n of Pub. Agency Customers, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 126 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1997).
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.