Opinion ID: 797595
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: PPL-test

Text: 7 On appeal, Otter Tail principally argues that the Board violated the Guidelines by adopting and applying the PPL -test rather than the SAC-test it previously used. Otter Tail requests that we hold that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. In response, the Board first argues that Otter Tail's failure to properly present these issues in the administrative proceedings precludes us from a review of its determination. After reviewing the record, we agree with the Board and decline to review its use of the PPL -test. 8 Courts apply a judicially imposed issue-exhaustion requirement when reviewing administrative decisions, which is analog[ous] to the rule that appellate courts will not consider arguments not raised before trial courts. Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 108-109, 120 S.Ct. 2080, 147 L.Ed.2d 80 (2000). 9 Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has articulated with precision the requirements an appellant must fulfill to successfully claim that it has properly raised and exhausted an issue before the Board. However, the Court has articulated a standard of specificity that arguments submitted to an administrative agency such as the Board must meet to obtain judicial review. An argument must be more than a cryptic and obscure reference to matters that `ought to be' considered. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 553-554, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978). Instead such arguments must be forthright and forcefully presented. Id.; See also Appalachian Power Co. v. E.P.A., 251 F.3d 1026, 1036 (D.C.Cir.2001) (Generalized objections to agency action or objections raised at the wrong time or in the wrong docket will not do.) 10 We note that the joint appendix submitted by the parties consists of over 300 pages of motions, exhibits, and other relevant material excluding Otter Tail's final brief. Out of these 300 pages, Otter Tail can only point to twenty-one words spread over two sentences found in two different proceedings where it referenced the Board's adoption of the PPL -test. In the first reference, Otter Tail states, Otter Tail is uncertain why the Board has posed the cross-subsidy question. . . The second citation by Otter Tail states Otter Tail . . . continues to object to the PPL -test . . . 11 These two statements provide an insufficient record that the principal issue raised on appeal was adequately raised to the administrative body below. These statements could not have put BNSF and the Board on notice that Otter Tail planned to challenge the adoption of the PPL -test. These two generalized and undeveloped statements are not structured in a way that  alerts the agency to the [parties'] position and contentions in order to allow the agency to give the issue meaningful consideration. Dep't of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 764, 124 S.Ct. 2204, 159 L.Ed.2d 60 (2004). 12 Otter Tail correctly notes that it first officially raised a challenge to the use of the PPL -test in its final brief. We agree that this challenge was sufficient to put the Board and BNSF on notice of its objection to the PPL -test. However, this notice was fatally late. The parties submitted final briefs simultaneously. Therefore, BNSF had no opportunity to investigate or respond to the PPL -test challenge nor did the Board have the opportunity to receive evidence relating to Otter Tail's challenge. We believe that under such circumstances our review would violate the exhaustion rule's principle of [s]imple fairness to those who are engaged in the tasks of administration, and to litigants. . . United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33, 37, 73 S.Ct. 67, 97 L.Ed. 54 (1952). We therefore decline to review Otter Tail's challenge to the PPL -test. 13 Otter Tail argues that even if it failed to properly challenge the PPL -test, then we should apply a narrow exception carved out by the Ninth Circuit in Great Falls Community TV Cable Co. v. F.C.C., 416 F.2d 238, 239-240 (9th Cir.1969). This exception exempts litigants from exhaustion when an agency has repeatedly and consistently decided the issue being appealed. Assuming, without deciding, that such a rule should be adopted, we believe the narrow exception is not applicable here. The PPL decision is relatively recent and does not have the type of subsequent reiterative decisions contemplated by Great Falls. Throughout its argument, Otter Tail attempts to distinguish the instant case from PPL Montana, LLC v. STB, 437 F.3d 1240 (D.C.Cir.2006) — the sole appellate decision addressing the validity of the PPL -test. Otter Tail on the one hand argues that the PPL is invalid and imprudently adopted and on the other hand contends that the use of the test is so settled it need not be raised before the Board. This inconsistency renders the argument untenable. 14 We hold that Otter Tail has waived its challenge to the PPL -test. Otter Tail points to other record examples to substantiate its claim that it timely raised objections to the Board's application of the test. Specifically, Otter Tail mentions the calculation and allocation of various costs. However, we believe that those arguments also lack the required forceful presentation necessary to give BNSF and the Board adequate notice.