Opinion ID: 2966842
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: New Arguments on Appeal

Text: The Association and the AWA have advanced a number of other arguments on appeal that we will not consider. These arguments 13 include allegations that a comprehensive plan was never developed, that FERC failed to follow its own regulations, including 18 C.F.R. § 2.13, and that this matter should be reviewed under the provisions of Executive Order No. 12898 (February 11, 1994) (providing that each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission). Our review of FERC's order is limited by 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b), which provides, No objection to the order of the Commission shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Commission in the application for rehearing unless there is reasonable ground for failure to do so. See also Escondido Mut. Water Co. v. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians, 466 U.S. 765, 779 n.23 (1984). The petitioners argue that they should be excused from this procedural limitation because they were not adequately notified of FERC's actions and were, in effect, ambushed by the application for amendment. As we have already discussed, however, we are satisfied that the petitioners had adequate notice of the proceedings below. Indeed, they participated in them extensively, both through oral testimony and in writing. Moreover, FERC addressed each of their claims in some detail in its various orders. Accordingly, we find no reason to expand our review beyond the limits fixed by Congress. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm FERC's various orders granting Summersville's application for amendment to its license. AFFIRMED 14