Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-13-01277/USCOURTS-caDC-13-01277-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
Intervenor for Respondent
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Respondent
New Energy Capital Partners, LLC
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 13-1277 September Term, 2016

 FILED ON: DECEMBER 2, 2016

NEW ENERGY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC,

PETITIONER

v.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,

RESPONDENT

ALCOA POWER GENERATING INC.,

INTERVENOR

Consolidated with 15-1307 

On Petitions for Review of Orders of 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Before: TATEL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge.

J U D G M E N T

This cause came to be heard on a petition for review from the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, and was briefed and argued by counsel. The Court has accorded the issues full 

consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 

36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review for late intervention (No. 13-

1277) be denied and the petition for review to reopen the record (No. 15-1307) be dismissed. 

In April 2013 Petitioner New Energy Capital Partners, LLC petitioned the Commission to 

reopen, and alternatively moved to intervene in, the ongoing relicensing proceeding for the 

Yadkin River project. New Energy’s petition and motion came nearly six years after the final 

deadline for intervention. New Energy argued that it had good cause for untimely intervention 

due to its lack of notice that the current licensee, Alcoa Power Generating Inc., planned on 

closing its manufacturing facility supplied by the Yadkin River project and selling project 

USCA Case #13-1277 Document #1648953 Filed: 12/02/2016 Page 1 of 3
electricity on the open market.

* * *

In May of that year the Commission denied intervention as untimely, and New Energy 

requested rehearing. See 18 C.F.R. § 385.214(d)(1) (providing for late intervention if the movant 

demonstrates “good cause”). In September the Commission denied rehearing on two grounds. 

First, the Commission held that a current licensee’s “decision as to where to sell project power is 

not a relevant issue in the relicensing proceeding and could not provide good cause for 

intervention.” Alcoa Power Generating Inc., 144 FERC ¶ 61,218, ¶ 15 (2013). Second, the 

Commission determined that “Alcoa Power [had] made known that it might sell power from the 

Yadkin Project into the open market as early as 2002.” Id. ¶ 16. The Commission further noted 

four instances prior to the deadline for intervention that effectively gave New Energy notice of 

Alcoa’s intent. Id. ¶¶ 16-19. 

New Energy timely challenged the first reason the Commission gave for denying 

intervention but did not challenge the second ground until its reply brief in this court. Therefore, 

New Energy has forfeited the latter argument. See, e.g., Rollins Envtl. Servs. v. EPA, 937 F.2d 

649, 652 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (“Issues may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief”).

Because the second ground stands, New Energy cannot prevail in its petition for review of the 

order denying intervention. 

On appeal, New Energy raised a second objection to the Commission’s denial of 

intervention. New Energy argues the closure of Alcoa’s manufacturing facility amounted to a 

material de facto amendment of its license application, requiring a new opportunity for 

intervention. New Energy did not, however, raise this objection before the Commission; 

therefore we are unable to consider it on appeal. 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”). 

* * *

The Commission later denied both New Energy’s petition to reopen the licensing 

proceeding in order to entertain new applications and New Energy’s subsequent request for 

rehearing of that denial. Alcoa Power Generating Inc., 152 FERC ¶ 61,040 (2015). Absent a 

successful motion for late intervention, New Energy is not a party to the relicensing proceeding,

and we cannot review the denial of its petition to reopen the record. 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) (“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”); Pub. Serv. 

Comm’n of N.Y. v. FPC, 284 F.2d 200, 204 (D.C. Cir. 1960) (holding that a would-be intervenor 

is “a party to the record in a limited sense” sufficient only to appeal “the matter of intervention”). 

Accordingly, we dismiss New Energy’s petition for review.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is 

USCA Case #13-1277 Document #1648953 Filed: 12/02/2016 Page 2 of 3
directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any 

timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

 Ken Meadows

 Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #13-1277 Document #1648953 Filed: 12/02/2016 Page 3 of 3