Opinion ID: 186802
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: FERC's Incomplete Information Rationale Is Inadequate

Text: 27 FERC justified its 2005 orders in part by stating that its original decision was based on incomplete information. On this point, the Commission claims that it did not become aware that the Transco lateral sat downstream of a line properly classified as jurisdictional until after the 2001 proceedings. See 2005 Transco Rehearing Order, 111 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,498, at 63,113; 2005 Transco Jurisdictional Order, 111 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,090, at 61,411. But FERC never explained why the classification of the Jupiter facility is relevant to the jurisdictional status of the Transco lateral under existing precedent. The only statement approximating a clarification of the incomplete information rationale can be found in a blanket assertion contained in the Background section of the earlier of the two 2005 orders: FERC declared, The presence of upstream transmission facilities determines the classification of downstream facilities, not the opposite. 2005 Transco Jurisdictional Order, 111 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,090, at 61,411. 28 But FERC simply cited the Jupiter footnote (where it had first stated the proposition without explanation). FERC made no attempt to square this new policy statement with its directly contradictory stance in Sea Robin II Rehearing Order and this court's decision in ExxonMobil. In Sea Robin II Rehearing Order, FERC stated, [T]he Commission does not agree that the fact of Sea Robin's upstream interconnection with [a jurisdictional facility], by itself, compels a finding that the east leg of Sea Robin's system is jurisdictional. 92 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,072, at 61,295. And in ExxonMobil, FERC convinced this court to conclude that the presence of an interconnection with an upstream jurisdictional facility [does not compel] a finding that the downstream facility is likewise jurisdictional. 297 F.3d at 1087. Now FERC asserts that it must reclassify a downstream line because [t]he presence of upstream transmission facilities determines the classification of downstream facilities. 2005 Transco Jurisdictional Order, 111 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,090, at 61,411. FERC's rationale could hardly be more inconsistent with precedent. And FERC's attempts to distinguish its precedents. . . [are] nonexistent. PG & E Gas Transmission, Nw. Corp. v. FERC, 315 F.3d 383, 389 (D.C.Cir.2003). 29