Opinion ID: 706815
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prudent Case Processing

Text: 20 The ripeness issue poses a very close question in this case, and the result that we have reached does not come easily. We also acknowledge that MVGC faced a terrible dilemma in having to decide when to seek review of the FERC orders. If MVGC had not filed the instant petition (on the assumption that review would still be available upon completion of all related proceedings before FERC), it faced the risk that the claim would be deemed time-barred and therefore dismissed. See Eagle-Picher, 759 F.2d at 909 ([P]etitioners who delay filing requests for review on their own assessment of when an issue is ripe for review do so at the risk of finding their claims time-barred.). Thus, it is not surprising that MVGC decided to avoid this risk. However, having acted prudently and filed this petition, it faces dismissal on grounds of ripeness. This is an unfortunate situation. 21 On the other hand, FERC's actions in this case leave something to be desired. The agency should have promptly recognized the ripeness issue and then filed a motion to dismiss in a timely fashion. This would have expedited consideration of the ripeness issue and conserved the resources of the court, FERC, MVGC, and intervenors, by avoiding the necessity of full briefing and oral argument. FERC and other agencies are well advised to file such motions in the future so as to avoid the dilemma seen in this case.