Opinion ID: 184033
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DOE's interaction with the affected States

Text: The record shows that DOE sought the affected States' input in three ways but also excluded them from participating in several significant respects. First, on February 2, 2006, DOE invited the public, including the affected States, to provide comments for its ongoing Congestion Study. Second, DOE informed the affected States of a technical conference that would be held in Chicago in March 2006. Third, when it issued the Congestion Study in August 2006, it invited comments on the designation of NIETCs. 71 Fed. Reg. at 45,047. On the other hand, the record shows that DOE did not extend an invitation to potentially affected States to attend an invitation-only workshop on the Congestion Study that was held in May 2006. Also, DOE did not disclose to the affected States the congestion modeling data it used to conduct the Congestion Study. Furthermore, DOE never extended any invitation to the affected States or their Governors to consult on the preparation of the Congestion Study. [7] DOE also cites its meetings with NARUC and meetings and conferences with other State entities as evidence that it met its obligation to consult. There is little, however, to suggest that these events provided meaningful opportunities for dialogues between the States and DOE. NARUC, of course, is not a state or even a state entity. Rather, it is a quasi-governmental organization that includes representatives of all fifty states. ... NARUC v. FCC, 746 F.2d 1492, 1497 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1984). Moreover, NARUC itself advised DOE that meeting with it was not the same as consulting with the affected States. [8] The record also fails to support DOE's assertion that those meetings that were held with certain State entities allowed for a meaningful exchange of information. [9] In sum, DOE's claim that it met its obligation to consult with the affected States is based on the argument that it had the discretion to determine what consultation required, that it met its obligation by inviting comments from the public (including the affected States) while it was preparing the Congestion Study, that it subsequently considered all objections to the Congestion Study raised by the affected States, and that any failures in this process of consultation were harmless.