16 U.S.C. § 825l

Review of orders

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Application for rehearing; time periods; modification of order

Any person, electric utility, State, municipality, or State commission aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in a proceeding under this chapter to which such person, electric utility, State, municipality, or State commission is a party may apply for a rehearing within thirty days after the issuance of such order. The application for rehearing shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds upon which such application is based. Upon such application the Commission shall have power to grant or deny rehearing or to abrogate or modify its order without further hearing. Unless the Commission acts upon the application for rehearing within thirty days after it is filed, such application may be deemed to have been denied. No proceeding to review any order of the Commission shall be brought by any entity unless such entity shall have made application to the Commission for a rehearing thereon. Until the record in a proceeding shall have been filed in a court of appeals, as provided in subsection (b), the Commission may at any time, upon reasonable notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any finding or order made or issued by it under the provisions of this chapter.

(b) Judicial review

Any party to a proceeding under this chapter aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in such proceeding may obtain a review of such order in the United States court of appeals for any circuit wherein the licensee or public utility to which the order relates is located or has its principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in such court, within sixty days after the order of the Commission upon the application for rehearing, a written petition praying that the order of the Commission be modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall forthwith be transmitted by the clerk of the court to any member of the Commission and thereupon the Commission shall file with the court the record upon which the order complained of was entered, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. Upon the filing of such petition such court shall have jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record with it shall be exclusive, to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in part. No objection to the order of the Commission shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Commission in the application for rehearing unless there is reasonable ground for failure so to do. The finding of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. If any party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce such evidence in the proceedings before the Commission, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Commission and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The Commission may modify its findings as to the facts by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and it shall file with the court such modified or new findings which, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of the original order. The judgment and decree of the court, affirming, modifying, or setting aside, in whole or in part, any such order of the Commission, shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28.

The filing of an application for rehearing under subsection (a) shall not, unless specifically ordered by the Commission, operate as a stay of the Commission’s order. The commencement of proceedings under subsection (b) of this section shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Commission’s order.

(June 10, 1920, ch. 285, pt. III, § 313, as added Aug. 26, 1935, ch. 687, title II, § 213, 49 Stat. 860; amended June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 32(a), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 127, 63 Stat. 107; Pub. L. 85–791, § 16, Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 947; Pub. L. 109–58, title XII, § 1284(c), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 980.)Editorial NotesCodification

In subsec. (b), “section 1254 of title 28” substituted for “sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U.S.C., title 28, secs. 346 and 347)” on authority of act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869, the first section of which enacted Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Amendments

2005—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–58 inserted “electric utility,” after “Any person,” and “to which such person,” and substituted “brought by any entity unless such entity” for “brought by any person unless such person”.

1958—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85–791, § 16(a), inserted sentence to provide that Commission may modify or set aside findings or orders until record has been filed in court of appeals.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 85–791, § 16(b), in second sentence, substituted “transmitted by the clerk of the court to” for “served upon”, substituted “file with the court” for “certify and file with the court a transcript of”, and inserted “as provided in section 2112 of title 28”, and in third sentence, substituted “jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record with it shall be exclusive” for “exclusive jurisdiction”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, as amended by act May 24, 1949, substituted “court of appeals” for “circuit court of appeals”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 249 cases (107 in the last 5 years), 1938–2026 · leading case: Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors, 603 U.S. 799 (2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors, 603 U.S. 799 (2024). · cites it 3× “§ 78y(a) (orders of the SEC); 16 U. S. C. § 825l(b) (FERC); 28 U. S. C.”

Ameren Servs. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 880 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “16 U.S.C. § 825l (b). That procedural default aside, the court could hardly dispute that Ameren has “a competitive motive” to favor affiliated generators over other generators.”

High Country Resources & Glacier Energy Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 255 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “1999) (noting that “[b]ecause the petitioners renew on this appeal the specific objections proffered in their administrative petitions for rehearing, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 825l (b)” (emphasis added)); Pac.”

Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FERC, 10 F.4th 839 (D.C. Cir. 2021). · cites it 4× “We have jurisdiction to consider its petition under 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b). II We review FERC orders under the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires us to set aside decisions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Entergy Arkansas, LLC v. FERC, 109 F.4th 583 (D.C. Cir. 2024). · cites it 4× “Entergy is supported by a group of Intervenors consisting of public utilities commissions in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the East Texas Electric Cooperative, a nonprofit corporation that operates the electrical grid in eastern Texas.”

Save The Colorado v. Spellmon, 50 F.4th 954 (10th Cir. 2022). · cites it 9× “16 U.S.C. § 825l(b). Does this jurisdiction extend to challenges against the Corps’ issuance of a permit to allow discharges required for the modification of a hydroelectric project licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission? 3 Appellate Case: 21-1155 Document:…”

Metro. Edison Co. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 767 F.3d 335 (3rd Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) (emphasis added). The relevant language of that provision has not changed materially since the City of Tacoma decision, except that when that opinion issued, exclusive jurisdiction attained “[u]pon the filing of [the] transcript” from the challenged FERC…”

Advanced Energy United, Inc. v. FERC, 82 F.4th 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2023). · cites it 5× “Section 205(g), through reference to Section 205(d), 16 U.S.C. § 825l, “addresses both the filing of an application for rehearing as a precondition to judicial review, and the effect of agency inaction within a specified time limit on opening the courthouse doors.”

Belmont Mun. Light Dep't v. FERC, 38 F.4th 173 (D.C. Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “This Court has jurisdiction under 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b). For the reasons explained below, the Petitions for Review are granted in part and denied in part.”

California Trout v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 572 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “See 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) ("No objection to the order of the Commission shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Commission in the application for rehearing unless there is reasonable ground for failure so to do.”

Wisconsin Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 363 F.3d 453 (D.C. Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “FPA § 313(b) provides in pertinent part that “[n]o objection to the order of the Commission shall be.”

Shafer & Freeman Lakes Env't Conservation Corp. v. FERC, 992 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 825l(a). Giving force to that exhaustion requirement, the Act expressly limits judicial review to only those matters that were “urged before the Commission in the application for 4 There is no indication here that the Service, in introducing its own record, is…”

Show all 249 citing cases →

— 16 U.S.C. § 825l(a) — 38 cases

Ameren Servs. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 880 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “16 U.S.C. § 825l (b). That procedural default aside, the court could hardly dispute that Ameren has “a competitive motive” to favor affiliated generators over other generators.”

Allegheny Def. Proj. v. FERC, 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

Advanced Energy United, Inc. v. FERC, 82 F.4th 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “Section 205(g), through reference to Section 205(d), 16 U.S.C. § 825l, “addresses both the filing of an application for rehearing as a precondition to judicial review, and the effect of agency inaction within a specified time limit on opening the courthouse doors.”

Shafer & Freeman Lakes Env't Conservation Corp. v. FERC, 992 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “16 U.S.C. § 825l(a). Giving force to that exhaustion requirement, the Act expressly limits judicial review to only those matters that were “urged before the Commission in the application for 4 There is no indication here that the Service, in introducing its own record, is…”

Grand Council of the Crees v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 198 F.3d 950 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

— 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) — 188 cases

Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors, 603 U.S. 799 (2024). “§ 78y(a) (orders of the SEC); 16 U. S. C. § 825l(b) (FERC); 28 U. S. C.”

Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FERC, 10 F.4th 839 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “We have jurisdiction to consider its petition under 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b). II We review FERC orders under the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires us to set aside decisions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Entergy Arkansas, LLC v. FERC, 109 F.4th 583 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “Entergy is supported by a group of Intervenors consisting of public utilities commissions in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the East Texas Electric Cooperative, a nonprofit corporation that operates the electrical grid in eastern Texas.”

High Country Resources & Glacier Energy Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 255 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2001). “1999) (noting that “[b]ecause the petitioners renew on this appeal the specific objections proffered in their administrative petitions for rehearing, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 825l (b)” (emphasis added)); Pac.”

Save The Colorado v. Spellmon, 50 F.4th 954 (10th Cir. 2022). “16 U.S.C. § 825l(b). Does this jurisdiction extend to challenges against the Corps’ issuance of a permit to allow discharges required for the modification of a hydroelectric project licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission? 3 Appellate Case: 21-1155 Document:…”

— 16 U.S.C. § 825l(c) — 1 case

Xcel Energy Servs. Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 815 F.3d 947 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

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.