# U nit e d S ta te s C our t of A ppe al s

F O R T H E D I S T R

I C T O F C O L U M

B I A C I R C U I T

Ar g ue d Janu a

ry 2 7, 2 02 2 De c ide d Ma rc h 22
, 20 22

No

. 20 -1 42 2

L SP T R A N S M I S S I O

N H O L D I

N G S I I
, L L C, P E T I T I O N E R

v.

F E D E R A L E N E R G Y R E G U L A T O R Y C O M M I S S I O N , R E S P O N D E N T

M A S S A C H

U S E T T S M U

N I C I P A L W H O L E S A L E E L E C T R I C C O M P A N Y A N D A V A N G R I D N E T W

O R K S , I N C ., I N T E R V E N O R S

On Pe tit ion f or Re vie w of

O rd e rs of th e F e de ra l E ne rg y

Re g ula tor y Co mmi ssi on

Mi c ha e l R. En gle ma n a

rg ue d the c a us e fo r pe tit ion e r. With him on the br ie fs we re Ro be rt C. Fa llo n a nd Chr ist ina Swi tze r.

Am be r L. Sto ne a

rg ue d the c a

us e fo r inte rv e no r Ma ssachus e tts Mu

nic ipa l Who le sa le El e c tr ic Com pa ny in

su pp or t of pe tit ion er. With he r on the br ie f wa s Sc ott H. Str au ss.

Car ol J

. Ba nta , Se nio r At

tor ne y , F e de ra l En e rg y Re g ula tor y Com mis sio n, a

rg ue d the c a us e fo r re sp on de nt. With he r on the br ie f we re Ma tth e w R. Christ ian se n , Ge ne ra l Cou ns e l, a nd2

Ro be rt H. S

olo mo n , Sol ic ito r.

B e fo re : R O G E R S a

nd P I L L

A R D , Cir c uit J

ud ge s , a nd R A N D O L P H , Se nio r Cir c uit

J ud ge

. Opin ion fo r the Cou

rt fi le d by Se nio r Cir c uit J udge R A N D O L P H

.

R A N D O L P H , Sen ior Cir c uit J ud ge : L SP Tr a

ns mis sio n Ho ldi ng s I I
, L L C, is a

n ind e pe nd e nt e le c tr ic tr a ns mis sio n de ve lop e r. I t r e g ula

rl y bid s o n p ro po sa ls t o b uil d tra ns mis sio n pr oje c ts t hr ou g ho ut t

he Un ite d Sta

te s. L SP b ri ng s thi s p e tit ion fo r jud ic ia l re vie w of a de c isi on of the F e de ra l En e rg y Regu lator y Com mis sio n c on c e rn ing I SO Ne w En g la nd ’s 1

c omp lia nc e w ith Co mmi ssi on

O rd e r No

. 10 00

.

Am on g oth e r thi ng s, Or de r No

. 10 00 re qu ir e d “ the re mov a l fr om Com

mis sio n- jur isd ic tio na l ta

ri ff s a nd a g re ement s of
pr ov isi on s tha t gr a

nt a fe de ra l rig ht of fi rs t re fu sa l to c on str uc t tr ansm iss ion fa c ili tie s se le c te d in a re g ion a l tr a ns mis sio n plan fo r pu rp os e s of c os t a llo c a tio n. ” Se e Tr a ns mis sio n Pla

nn ing a nd Cos t Al loc a tio n by Tr a

ns mis sio n Ow nin g a

nd Op e ra tin g Pub lic Ut ili tie s, 1 36 F ERC ¶ 61 ,0 51
, P. 22 5 (2 01 1)

. I ns te a d of a r ig ht of fi rs t re f u s a l
, t h e C omm iss ion dir e c te d inc umb e nt tr a ns mis sio n p r o v i d e r s t o e n g a g e i n c o m p e t i t i v e s e l e c t i o n o f de ve lop e rs —w hic h me a

nt de sc ri bing the pr oje c t, so lic iti ng pr op os a ls, a

nd e va lua tin g bids

. Se e id. ; se e als o S. C. Pu b. Se rv

. Au th. v

. FE

RC
, 76 2 F .3 d 41
, 72 –7 3 & n. 6 (D .C. Cir

. 20 14 ). B ut the Com mis sio n re c og nize d a n e xce pti on c e ntr a l to thi s dis pu te :

I SO Ne w Eng l a

nd i s a pr i v a

t e , no n- pr o f

i t r e g i o na l t

r a ns m i s s i o n 1

o r g a ni z a t i o n t ha t a dm i ni s t e r s Ne w Eng l a nd’s e ne r g y m a

r k e ts and

o pe r a t e s “t he re g i o n’s bul k po w e r t

r a ns m i s s i o n s y s t e m .” Br

ai nt r e e El e c

. Li ght De p’ t v

. FE RC
, 550 F.3 d 6, 9 ( D. C. Ci r

. 2008 ) ( i nt e r na l
quo t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d)

.3

if the tim e ne e de d to so lic it a nd c on du c t c omp e tit ive biddi ng would de la

y the pr oje c t a

nd the re by thr e a te n sy st em

“ re lia bil ity ,” the n c omp e tit ive bid din g wo uld no t be requ ir e d. 13 6 F ERC ¶

6 1, 05 1, P. 3 29

.

I n a pp ro ving I SO Ne w En g la nd ’s ta ri ff re vis ion s in 20 13
, the Com mis si on re a ff

ir me d “ tha t in c e rt a in ins ta

nc e s tim e

c on str a int s ma

y no t a llo w fo r the op e n so lic ita tio n of

re lia bil ity -rel ate d tr ans mi ssi on pr oje c ts wi tho ut ri sk ing

re lia bil ity to the sy st em. ” IS O Ne w En g. In c

. , 14 3 F ERC ¶ 61 ,1 50
, P. 23 5 (2 01 3) [he re ina ft e r Com pli a nc e Ord er]

. Th e Com mis sio n lis te d c ri te ri a to g ov e rn wh eth er a ri g ht of fi rs t

re fu sa l a pp lie d to re lia

bil ity pr oje c ts, on e of wh ic h wa s tha t “ the

re lia bil ity pr oje c t mus t b e n e e de d in thr e e y e a rs o r le ss to so lve

re lia bil ity c ri te ri a vio la

tio ns .” Id

. P. 236

. Th e thr e e -ye a

r limit is le ss tha n wh a t I SO Ne w Eng la

nd so ug ht— it wa

nte d to e xemp t proje c ts ne e de d wi thi n fi ve y e a rs

. Id

. PP. 22 0, 23 7. Th e Com mis sio n re

je c te d tha

t pr op os a l, c on c lud ing tha t su c h a n

ex te nd e d tim e -f

ra me fo r de sig na

tin g a pr oje c t a s a

n ur gent sy ste m- re lia

bil ity ne e d “ wo uld e ff

e c tiv e ly pr e c lud e the be ne fi ts of c omp e tit ion in se le c tin g the mor e e ff ic ie nt or cost -e ff

e c tiv e pr oje c ts. ” Id

.

B y 20 19
, the Com

mis sio n ha d be c ome c on c e rn e d tha t I SO Ne w En g la

nd a nd oth e r uti lit ie s we re a c tin g inc on sis te ntl y wi th the c omp e tit ive se le c tio n re qu ir e me nts of Or de r No

. 10 00 a nd late r or de rs

. Se e IS O Ne w En g. In c

. , 16 9 F ERC ¶ 61 ,0 54 (2 01 9) [he re ina ft e r Sho w Ca

us e Or de r]. Th e Com mis sio n, inv ok ing Se c tio n 20 6 of the F e deral Pow e r Ac t (“ F PA” ), 16 U. S.C. § 82 4e
, dir e c te d I SO Ne w En g la nd to :
(1 ) de mon str a te ho w it is c omp ly ing wi th the imm e dia te ne e d re lia

bil ity pro

je c t c ri te ri a ; (2 ) de mon st rat e tha

t the pr ov isi on s in its ta ri ff
, a s imp le me nte d, c on ta ini ng c e rt a in e xemp tio ns to the4

re qu ir e me nts of Or de r No

. 10 00 fo r imm e dia te ne e d

re lia bil ity p ro je c ts re ma in jus t a

nd re a so na

ble ; a nd ( 3)

c on sid e r a dd iti on a l c on dit ion s or re str ic tio ns on the us e of the e xemp tio n fo r im me dia te ne e d re lia

bil ity
pr oje c ts to a

pp ro pr iate ly ba la

nc e the nee d to pr omo te

c omp e tit ion fo r tr a

ns mis sio n de ve lop me nt a nd a vo id de la y s tha t c ou ld e nd a

ng e r re lia bil ity

.

Id

. P. 1.

Pa rt ic ula rl y tr ou bli ng to the Com mis sio n wa s the nu mbe r of I SO Ne w En g la

nd pr oje c ts wi th e sti ma

te d “ ne e d-by da

te s”

oc c ur ri ng wi thi n the thr e e -ye a

r wi nd ow , bu t be fo re the pr oje c ts

wou ld bec ome op e ra

tio na l. Id

. P. 8. Ne e d- by da

te s a re

e sti mate d da

te s wh e n a pr oje c t wo uld be ne e de d to g ua ra nte e sy ste m re lia

bil ity

. I n- se rv ic e da

te s a re the pr oje c te d da

te s wh e n

a c omp le te d pr oje c t wo uld be fu lly op e ra tio nal. I SO Ne w En g la nd e xpla ine d tha

t a ne e d- by da

te c a n pr e da te a n in- se rv ic e da te be c a us e I SO Ne w En g la

nd us e s “ a mor e c on se rv a tiv e se t of

a ssu mpt ion s” a

bo ut wh e n a pr oje c t wi ll be ne c e ssa ry to pr e ve nt

re lia bil ity s ho rt fa lls

.

L SP in te rv e ne d in

the § 2 06 pr oc e e din g . I

n it s c omm e nts , L SP e mph a size d tha

t sin c e 20 16
, I SO Ne w En g la nd ha d

e xemp te d fr om c omp e tit ion “ vir tua lly e ve ry

. . . re lia

bil ity ne e d”
pr oje c t—t

hat is, thi rt

y of thi rt y -o ne su c h pr oje c ts. J.A. 30 3. L SP ur g e d the Com mis sio n to e lim ina te or lim it the c omp e tit ion

e xce pti on f or s y ste m r e lia

bil ity p ro je c ts.

Th e Com mis sio n fo un d “ ins uf fi c ie nt evi de nc e ” tha

t I SO Ne w En g la

nd wa s inc or

re c tly imp le me nti ng Or de r No

. 10 00 a nd its pr og e ny

. IS O Ne w En g. , 17 1 F ERC ¶ 61 ,2 11
, PP. 1, 55 (2 02 0) [he re ina ft e r Te rm ina tio n Or de r]. Th e Com mis sio n s a w

no e rr or in I SO Ne w En g la nd ’s us e or c a lc ula

tio n of nee d- by dat es, whi ch th e Com mis sio n thou ght pro vi ded for5

c on tin g e nc ie s a

nd e ns ur e d re lia

ble se rv ic e

. Id

. PP. 56 –5 9. Th e re wa s no dis pu te tha t I SO Ne w En g la

nd fo ll owe d the Com pli a nc e Ord er. Id

. P. 60

. F or tho se sa

me re a so ns , the Commi ss io n de nie d L SP’ s re he a ri ng pe tit ion

. Se e IS O Ne w En g. , 17 2 F ERC ¶ 61 ,2 93 (2 02 0) [he re ina ft e r Re he a ri ng Or de r].

I

.

The Co mm iss ion se e ks to c on vin c e us tha t L SP do e s no t ha ve sta nd ing a nd tha t e ve n if it do e s, the Com mis sio n’ s de c isi on is im mun e f

ro m j ud ic ia l e xami na

tio n.

A.

As to s ta nd ing , th e Co mmi ssi on

a sk s ho w L SP c ou ld ha

ve

su ff e re d a n Ar tic le I I I inj ur

y wh e n the Commis sio n “ ma de no

c ha ng e s to the e xistin g , pr e vio us ly -a pp ro ve d pla

nn ing c ri te ri a .” Th e la w ha s lon g be e n c le a

r: to e sta bli sh inj ury , L S P ha d on ly
to sh ow tha

t it “ wa s re a dy
, wi lli ng a

nd a ble to pe rf

or m” a nd tha t Ord e r No

. 10 00 a

nd the ta ri ff “ de pr ive d the c omp a ny of th e oppo rt un ity to c omp e te ” fo r the wo rk

. O’ Do nn e ll Con str

. Co.

v

. Di str ic t of Col

um bia
, 96 3 F .2 d 42 0, 42 3 (D .C. Cir

. 19 92 ); se e Car ne y v

. Ad am s , 14 1 S. Ct. 49 3, 49 9– 50 0, 50 3 (2 02 0) ; Ne

. Fl a. Cha pte r of As so c iat e d Ge n. Con tra c tor

s v

. City of

J ac k so nv ill e , 50 8 U. S. 65 6, 66 6 (1 99 3)

. L SP me t the se re qu ir e ment s. I t de mon str a te d its re a din e ss wh e n its su bsidi a ry bid on the on ly

on e o f thi rt

y -o ne r e c e nt r e lia

bil ity pr oje c ts o pe n to c omp e tit ive bid din g

. Ye t be c a

us e of the Com mis sio n’ s c ri te ri a , the re wa s no

c omp e tit ive bid din g fo r the thi rt y oth e r tr a

ns mis sio n pr oje c ts. L SP a c c or din g ly

h a s su ff e re d a n Ar tic le I I I in jur y

.

LSP Tra ns mi

ssi on Ho ldi ng

s, LLC v

. FE

RC
, 70 0 F

. Ap p’ x 1, 2 ( D. C. C ir . 2 01 7) (p e r c ur ia m) , h a s n o b e a

ri ng on thi s c a se

. We he ld tha

t L SP la c ke d sta

nd ing to c la im that a uti lit y

wr on g fu lly e xclu de d it “ fr om c omp e tit ion ba se d on sta te a nd6

loc a l la ws .” Id. W e so he ld be c a us e L SP fa ile d to ide nti fy a

“ sp e c if ic pr oje c t tha

t [the uti lit

y ] ha s a pp ro ve d fo r re g ion a l c os t

a llo c a tio n in a sta

te wh os e la

w g ive s a n in cum ben t a ri g ht of fi rs t re fu sa l

. . .. ” Id

. Th e sit ua tio n he re is qu ite dif

fe re nt. Th e re c a n be no do ub tin g L SP’ s a sse rt ion tha t it ha s be e n de nie d the a bil ity to bid on the thi rt y ide nti fi e d pr oje c ts a s a re su lt of I SO N e w Englan d’ s im

ple me nta tio n o f t he Com pli a nc e Or de r.

B

.

Th e Com mis sio n’ s a

rg ume nt tha t its ru lin g is imm

un e fr om jud ic ia l qu e sti on ing re sts on the Sup re me Cou rt ’s int e rp re ta

tio n of the Ad min ist ra tiv e Pr oc e du

re Act
, 5 U. S.C. § 70 1( a )( 2)
, in He c k le r v

. Cha ne

y , 47 0 U. S. 82 1 (1 98 5)

. I ts act io n here is

re vie wa ble

. Th e Com mis sio n inv ok e d § 20 6 of the F e de ra l P owe r Ac t, 16 U. S.C. § 82 4e
, a nd iss ue d a sh ow c a

us e or der

un de r 18 C.F .R. § 38 5. 20 9( a ). Sho w Caus e Or de r P. 1 & n. 2. Pr oc e e din g s un de r F PA § 20 6 re su lt in “ su bs ta nti ve a dju dic a tiv e de c isi on s. ” Pu b. Ci tiz e n, In c

. v

. FE RC
, 7 F .4 th 11 77
, 11 96 n .4 (D .C. Cir

. 20 21 ). Com

pa re 16 U. S.C. § 82 4e (a ), with 5 U. S.C. § 554 (c ). Th e Com mis sio n p ub lis he d n oti c e of the pr oc e e din g in t he Fe der al

Re gis te r “ wi th i nte rv e nti on s d ue wi thi n 2 1 d a

y s of pu bli c a tio n. ” Termina

tio n Or de r P. 5. Mu lti ple

or g a niza tio ns , includ in g L SP, tim e ly mov e d to int e rv e ne a nd fi le d c omm e nts

. Id

. PP. 5– 8. Th e Com mis sio n c on sid e re d a nd

a dd res se d the se c omm e nts in co nc lud ing tha t no fur the r ac tio n

wa s ne e de d. Id

. PP. 1 2– 63

.

As fo r the or de r its e lf

, the Com mis sio n re so lve d the ma tte r

on the me ri ts. Se e Citi

ze ns to Pr e

s. Ov e rto n Pa rk

, In c

. v

. Vo lpe
, 40 1 U.S. 40 2, 41 0 (1 971)

. I t expla ine d that fur the r ac tio n wa s

un nece ssa

ry be c a us e I SO Ne w En g la

nd ha d c omp lie d wi th Or der No. 10 00 a

nd its Ta ri ff

. Te rm ina

tio n Or de r PP. 55 –6 0. Th e or de r te rm ina

tin g the pr oc e e din g is re ple te wi th inv oc a tio ns of a g e nc y pr e c e de nt a

nd re a so ns fo r re ta ini ng the e xemp tio n7

c ri te ri a

. Id

.

Th e Com mis sio n’ s ru lin g thu s be a rs a ll the ind ic ia of a

su bs ta ntive de c isi on pr od

uc e d a ft e r a c on te ste d pr oc e e din g inv olv ing no t on ly I SO Ne w En g la nd bu t a lso nu me ro us int e rv e no rs

. I t i s the re fo re s ub je c t t o jud ic ia l r e vie w.

I I

.

On the me ri ts, L SP’ s ma in a rg ume nt is tha

t the Com mis sio n sh ou ld h a ve re qu ir e d I SO N e w E ng la nd to u se in- service da

te s

ra the r tha n ne e d- by da

te s to de te rm ine wh e ther a re lia bil ity proj ect wo uld be e xemp t fr om Or de r No

. 10 00 ’s c omp e tit ive

se le c tio n re qu ir e me nt. L SP c la ims tha t us ing ne e d- by da

te s ha s le d to ne a

rl y a ll re lia

bil ity pr oje c ts be ing e xemp t fr om

com pet it ion , e ve n th ou g h th e pr oje c ts d id n ot c ome on lin e fo r y e a rs a ft e r the ir ne e d- by da te s ha d pa sse d— a sit

ua tio n L S P de sc ri be s a s the e xce pti on s wa llo wi ng

th e r ule

.

Th e Com mis sio n re c og nize d tha t need-b y da

te s “ of te n

oc c ur ” we ll be fo re in- se rv ic e da te s. Re he a

ri ng Or de r P. 31

. An d it a dd

re sse d the c on te nti on tha

t ne e d- by da

te s a re inf e ri or to in- se rv ic e da

te s. Re ly ing on a pr ior de c isi on , the Com mis sio n

e xpla ine d wh y “ it is pr op e r to us e the da te a re lia bil it y ne e d

mus t be a dd

re sse d ra the r tha n the e xpe c te d in- se rv ic e da te of the
pr oje c t c ho se n

. . .. ” Id

. P. 29 ; se e PJ

M In te rc on ne c tio n, L.L. C.
, 15 6 F ERC ¶ 61 ,0 30
, P. 24 (2 01 6)
, v ac ate d on oth e r gr ou nd s by Ol d D om ini on El e c . Co op . v . F ER C , 8 98 F .3 d 1 25 4 (D .C

. Ci r. 20 18 ).

An a g e nc y “ ne e d no t re pe a t its e lf inces sa ntl y ” a nd c a n dis po se of cla ims by re ly ing up on pr ior a c tio ns pr ov ide d the

a g e nc y ’s e a

rl ie r re a so nin g ha s no t be e n re nd e re d inv a lid

. Be c hte l v

. FCC
, 10 F .3 d 87 5, 87 8 (D .C. Cir

. 19 93 ); see als o Lic ho ula s v

. FE

RC
, 60 6 F .3 d 76 9, 77 7 (D .C. Cir

. 20 10 ). Us ing8

ne e d- by da te s r a the r t

ha n e xpe c te d in -s e rv ic e da

te s to de c ide if

a pr oje c t fa lls wi thi n the Com pliance Or de r’ s ne e de d- wi thi nth ree-y ears -or -l ess requ ir eme nt , th e Co mm is si on sai d,

a c c omp lis he s the pu

rp os e of g e tting urg e nt pr oje c ts fu lf ill e d

e xpe dit iou sly . Re he a

ri ng O rd e r P. 30

. M os t c on c e rn ing to t he Com mis sio n wa s tha

t me a su ri ng by in- se rv ic e da

te s c ou ld de la

y

ur g e ntl y ne e de d p rojec ts t

ha t w ou ld t a ke mor e tha

n th re e y e a rs to c omp le te bec a

us e su c h pr oje c ts wo uld be su bje c t to the

c omp e tit ive -b idd ing pr oc e ss. Id

. I n e xpla ini ng the fo un da tio n 2 fo r u sin g ne e d- by

da te s, the Com mis sio n a de qu a te ly a dd re sse d L SP’ s ob je c tio n.

We se e no thi ng ir

ra tio na l in the Com mis sio n’ s re sp on se to L SP’ s g e ne ra l c ri tic ism of I SO Ne w En g la nd ’s us e of mor e

con se rv a tiv e a ssu

mpt ion s re g a

rd ing its sy ste m c a

pa c ity a nd fu tur e ma na g e me nt. Id

. P. 28

. Th e Com mis sio n e xpla ine d tha t I SO Ne w En g la

nd ’s meth od olo g y

—a nd sp e c if ic a lly its us e of

ne e d- by da

te s— he lps e ns ur e “ re lia

ble se rv ic e to loa d un de r a wi de r a ng e o f op e ra

tin g c on dit ion s

. . .. ” Te rm ina tio n Or de r P. 58

. An d the Com mis sio n no te d th at “the us e of mor e

c on se rv a tiv e stu dy a ssu

mpt ion s in tr a

ns mis sio n pla

nn in g is

c on sis te nt wi th a

pp lic a ble No rt h Am e ri c a

n El e c tr ic Re lia

bil ity Cor po ra tio n (N ERC ) Reli abil ity Sta nd a rd s. ” Re he a

ri ng Or de r P. 28

.

Al so , a c c or din g to L SP, the Commi ssion imp ro pe rl y

“Us i ng t he a nt i c i pa t e d in- s e r v i c e da t e i ns t e a d o f t

he ne e d- by 2 da t e c o ul d l e a d to t

he pe r v e r s e r e s ul t w

he r e t he i m m e di a t e ne e d

r e l i a bi l i t y pr o je c t e xe m pt i o n w o ul d a

ppl y t o a pr o je c t ne e de d i n t

hr e e y e a r s i f i t c o ul d be pl a c e d i n s e r v i c e w i t hi n t hr e e y e a r s , but t ha t t he

m o r e t i m e

- c o ns um i ng c o m pe t i t i v e pr o po s a l w i ndo w pr o c e s s w o ul d be

r e qui r e d t o a ddr e s s a r e l i a bi l i t y s o l ut i o n n e e de d i n o ne y e a r i f i t c o ul d

no t be pl a c e d i n s e r

v i c e w i t hi n t hr e e y e a r s

. Us e o f t

he ne e de d by da

t e pr e v e nt s s uc h a

n i na ppr o pr i a t e o ut c o m e .” R e he a

r i ng O r de r

P. 30

.9

de pa rt e d from th e pr e c e de nt se t in Or de r No .1 00 0 a nd late r

or de rs

. L SP’ s e vid e nc e of thi s is tha t the ov e rwhe lmi ng

ma jor ity of I SO Ne w En g la

nd ’s re lia bil ity pr oje c ts fe ll wi thi n the e xce pti on fr om co mpet ition

. I n re sp on se , the Com mis sio n

re a ff ir me d the de c isi on a l pr oc e ss fo r de sig na tin g a pr oje c t a s a

n

ur g e nt re lia

bil ity ne e d— fi nd ing tha

t the “ c ri te ria a

pp ro pr ia te ly ba la nc e re liabil ity a

nd c omp e tit ion .” Re he a

ri ng Or de r P. 23

. Th e Com mis sio n n ote d th a t “ the fr e qu e nc y ” of th e e xce pti on ’s inv ocation

“ do e s n ot a lon e pr ov ide su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e tha

t th e Ta ri ff is un jus t a nd unre a so na

ble .” Id

. Th e Com mis sio n po int e d to a re c e nt ins tance wh e re a re lia bil ity -p ro je c t

so lic ita tio n wa s c on du c te d c omp e tit ively

. Id

. P. 24

. An d the Com mis sio n de te rm ine d tha t I SO New En g la

nd ha d c or

re c tly

a pp lie d the Co mpl ia

nc e O rd e r’ s c ri te ri a

. Id

.

L SP frames its a

rg ume nt in te rm s of re qu ir ing the Com mis sio n to fo llo w its pr e c e de nts

. B ut L SP ur g e s the Com mis sio n to aban do n its cu rr e nt ru le s bec a

us e fa r too ma ny pr oje c ts a re wi nd ing up e xemp t fr om c omp e tit ion

. L SP ma y ha ve a po int

. I f a the or

y do es no t wo rk in pr a c tic e , the re is

us ua lly so me thi ng wr on g with the the or y

. Se e J O H

N S T U A R T M I L L , A U T O B I O G R

A P H Y 79 (J. B e nn e tt e d.
, 20 17 ) (1 87 3)

. Ye t L SP did no t c ha lle ng e the Co mmi ssi on ’s f ind ing tha t I SO Ne w En g la nd ha d no t vio late d the Com mis sio n’ s ta ri ff

. An d a lth ou g h the nu mber of re lia

bil ity pr oje c ts so fa

r e xemp te d fr om

c omp e tit ive bi dding e xce e de d tho se op e n to c omp e tit ion
, the

a pp ro pr iate ba la

nc e s tr uc k— be tw e e n c omp e tit ive pr oc ur e me nt

a nd qu ic k re dr e ss of re lia bil ity ne e ds —is the so rt of po lic y jud g me nt le ft to the Com mis sio n

. Se e Fr e sn o Mobi le Ra dio

, In c

. v

. FCC
, 16 5 F .3 d 96 5, 9 71 ( D. C. Cir

. 19 99 ).

The p e tit ion fo r jud

ic ial r e v ie w i s de nie d.