16 U.S.C. § 825i
Appointment of officers and employees; compensation
The Commission is authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of such officers, attorneys, examiners, and experts as may be necessary for carrying out its functions under this chapter; and the Commission may, subject to civil-service laws, appoint such other officers and employees as are necessary for carrying out such functions and fix their salaries in accordance with chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 124
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1938–2024 · 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). “The petitioners now ask us to grant a writ of mandamus compelling FERC to act formally on the 1997 petition.”
Port of Seattle v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 499 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2007). “” 16 U.S.C. § 825i (b). In addition, “[l]ike all parties seeking access to the federal courts, [Puget is] held to the constitutional requirement of standing.”
Clifton Power Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 294 F.3d 108 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “Section 313(a) of the FPA provides that the Commission may modify or set aside any order, even after a petition for judicial review has been filed, “until the record in [the] proceeding shall have been filed in a court of appeals,” 16 U.S.C. § 825i(a); and section 313(b)…”
Wisconsin Pub. Power Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 493 F.3d 239 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “Hence, the court’s review of whether a particular rate design is just and reasonable is highly deferential.”
California Trout v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 572 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2009). “See 16 U.S.C. § 825i(a) (“Any person ... aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in a proceeding under this chapter to which such person .”
Golden Nw. Aluminum, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 501 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2007). “§ 825i (b). In this case, the Tribes filed their petition for review on December 17, 2003-61 days after FERC denied their petition for rehearing on October 17, 2003.”
United States v. S. California Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Cal. 2004). “SCE challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to hear any disputes arising out of a FERC license, arguing such claims fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of FERC and the Court of Appeals pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 825i and 18 C.F.R. § 385.901 .”
Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402 (1983). “Unlike the FPA, see 16 U. S. C. § 825i(b), PURPA does not direct reviewing courts to determine whether orders entered thereunder are supported by substantial evidence.”
Turlock Irrigation Dist. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 786 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “1992) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 825i(b)). Moreover, “we are particularly reluctant to interfere with the agency’s reasoned judgments” when its orders “involve complex scientific or technical questions.”
Town of Norwood, Massachusetts v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Boston Edison Co., Intervenor, 906 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “Because we find that the Town failed to present its argument for such refunds in an application for rehearing before the Commission, we dismiss this petition for want of jurisdiction pursuant to section 313 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 825i (1988). I. Background On…”
Escondido Mut. Water Co. v. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians, 466 U.S. 765 (1984). “” 16 U. S. C. § 825i(b). 20 Of course, the Commission is not required to argue in support of the conditions if it objects to them.”
DTE Energy Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 394 F.3d 954 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “It was not until the April 11 Order, in which Detroit Edison intervened, that the Commission accepted DTE Energy’s compliance filing with modifications directing DTE Energy, IT, and Detroit Edison to revise their filings to include the DIG facilities as jurisdictional…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 825i(a) — 12 cases
Clifton Power Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 294 F.3d 108 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “Section 313(a) of the FPA provides that the Commission may modify or set aside any order, even after a petition for judicial review has been filed, “until the record in [the] proceeding shall have been filed in a court of appeals,” 16 U.S.C. § 825i(a); and section 313(b)…”
California Trout v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 572 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2009). “See 16 U.S.C. § 825i(a) (“Any person ... aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in a proceeding under this chapter to which such person .”
City of Redding v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 693 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2012).
DTE Energy Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 394 F.3d 954 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “It was not until the April 11 Order, in which Detroit Edison intervened, that the Commission accepted DTE Energy’s compliance filing with modifications directing DTE Energy, IT, and Detroit Edison to revise their filings to include the DIG facilities as jurisdictional…”
Indiana Util. Regulatory Comm'n v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 668 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
— 16 U.S.C. § 825i(b) — 84 cases
In Re Am. Rivers, 372 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “The petitioners now ask us to grant a writ of mandamus compelling FERC to act formally on the 1997 petition.”
Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402 (1983). “Unlike the FPA, see 16 U. S. C. § 825i(b), PURPA does not direct reviewing courts to determine whether orders entered thereunder are supported by substantial evidence.”
Turlock Irrigation Dist. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 786 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “1992) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 825i(b)). Moreover, “we are particularly reluctant to interfere with the agency’s reasoned judgments” when its orders “involve complex scientific or technical questions.”
Escondido Mut. Water Co. v. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians, 466 U.S. 765 (1984). “” 16 U. S. C. § 825i(b). 20 Of course, the Commission is not required to argue in support of the conditions if it objects to them.”
City of Tacoma v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 460 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
— 16 U.S.C. § 825i(b)(1982) — 1 case
Harriet F. Laflamme v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Joseph Keating , Respondent-Intervenor, 842 F.2d 1063 (9th Cir. 1988).
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.