Court Opinion

ID: 9407484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-07 16:01:11.128272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:38.678815
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Submitted October 18, 2022            Decided July 7, 2023

                       No. 21-1192

         HECATE ENERGY GREENE COUNTY 3 LLC,
                     PETITIONER

                             v.

       FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,
                    RESPONDENT

     NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC.,
                    INTERVENOR

                Consolidated with 21-1274

             On Petitions for Review of Orders
       of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

     William M. Rappolt and Mark F. Sundback were on the
briefs for petitioner.

    Matthew R. Christiansen, General Counsel, Federal En-
ergy Regulatory Commission, Robert H. Solomon, Solicitor,
and Matthew W.S. Estes, Attorney, were on the brief for re-
spondent.
                               2

     C. Dixon Wallace III, John Lee Shepherd, Jr., Ted J. Mur-
phy, and Brian M. Zimmet were on the brief for intervenor New
York Independent System Operator, Inc. in support of respond-
ent.

    Before: MILLETT, WALKER and CHILDS, Circuit Judges.

    Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALKER.

    WALKER, Circuit Judge: Because electricity-transmission
grids are expensive and difficult to build, grid operators can be
natural monopolists. To ensure that consumers do not pay mo-
nopoly prices, Congress requires transmission operators to
charge reasonable rates. And tariffs containing those rates
must be filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
before they are levied on generators.

     Here, a generator, Hecate Energy, accuses a transmission-
grid operator, the New York Independent System Operator, of
charging a rate that it had not filed with FERC. Hecate com-
plains that the System Operator’s filed tariff was not detailed
enough. So it says it was surprised when the System Operator
charged it $10 million in grid-upgrade costs to connect its
power plant to the grid. 1

     FERC rejected that argument, finding that the tariff put
Hecate on notice. Unsatisfied, Hecate petitioned this court for
judicial review. Because we agree with FERC that the System

1
  Curious readers might wonder how “Hecate” is pronounced. It’s
“HEK-a-tee,” like the Greek goddess of magic, not “HEK-ut,” like
the ruler of the witches in Shakespeare’s Macbeth.
                                   3
Operator’s tariff had enough detail to fairly inform Hecate, we
deny Hecate’s petitions for review. 2

                                   I

                                   A

     To supply power to consumers, electricity generators (like
Hecate) must connect to the transmission grid. Transmission-
grid operators set the terms under which generators connect to
the grid. Those terms are contained in a document called a tar-
iff.

     But transmission operators do not have a free hand in set-
ting the terms in the tariff. Under the Federal Power Act, “[a]ll
rates and charges” and “all rules and regulations affecting . . .
such rates” must be “just and reasonable.” 16 U.S.C.
§ 824d(a). Plus, transmission operators must “file . . . all rates
and charges” with FERC. Id. § 824d(c). Because the terms for
connecting to the grid are “rules . . . affecting . . . such rates,”
they must be filed. Id. § 824d(a).

    This case concerns the scope of that requirement. How
detailed must the tariff be?

2
  Hecate filed two petitions for review in this court. It filed the first
petition after FERC did not act on its rehearing request within thirty
days. See 16 U.S.C. § 825l(a) (rehearing request is “deemed to have
been denied” if FERC does not act on it “within thirty days”). It filed
the second petition after FERC eventually addressed Hecate’s re-
hearing arguments. We address both petitions here.
                                4
                                B

     Hecate is a power-plant developer. It plans to build a solar
facility in New York. To sell electricity, it must connect its
facility to New York’s interstate-transmission grid.

     That grid is managed by the System Operator. The System
Operator is “an independent regional transmission organization
that operates, but does not own, the power transmission system
in New York state.” 3 New York Regional Interconnect, Inc. v.
FERC, 634 F.3d 581, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

      Following rules set out in a tariff filed with FERC, the Sys-
tem Operator processes generators’ grid-connection requests.
It first assigns a queue position to each request. Then it con-
ducts an “interconnection study” to determine the impact the
connection will have on the grid. If the proposed connection
requires grid upgrades, the owner of the new connection must
pay for them. If it refuses, it cannot connect to the grid.

      In line with that process, the System Operator gave Hecate
a queue position and performed an interconnection study for
Hecate’s solar facility. To figure out Hecate’s impact on the
grid, the System Operator first developed a “base case” — that
is, a model of the expected strain on the grid without the power
from Hecate’s facility. The base case reflects information
about existing and planned connections to the grid.

     The base case includes information about so-called “non-
jurisdictional projects.” Nonjurisdictional projects are small,

3
  Agreements between New York’s transmission owners and the Sys-
tem Operator empower it to operate the transmission grid. See Cen-
tral Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., 83 FERC ¶ 61,352, at 62,405,
62,413 (1998) (describing that relationship).
                                   5
local electricity generators, not subject to FERC’s jurisdiction.
See 16 U.S.C. § 824(b)(1). They connect to the grid following
different rules, often set by the transmission-grid
owner — here, Central Hudson. 4

     For Hecate’s interconnection study, the System Operator
included six nonjurisdictional projects in its base case. Includ-
ing those projects meant that Hecate’s connection was pro-
jected to require grid upgrades. So the System Operator found
that Hecate was required to pay $10 million in upgrade costs.

                                   C

     Unwilling to pay, Hecate challenged the System Opera-
tor’s decision before FERC. Hecate argued that the System
Operator’s tariff did not give Hecate notice that the six nonju-
risdictional projects would be included in its interconnection
study.

     Hecate contended that the tariff should have included in-
formation about Central Hudson’s practices for reporting non-
jurisdictional projects to the System Operator. Under its “in-
clusion rule,” Central Hudson reports projects when they are
“firm.” JA 28-29. Central Hudson views a project as “firm”
once its owner has signed an interconnection agreement and
paid at least twenty-five percent of its costs. Hecate claimed
that under the Federal Power Act, that rule is a “practice[ ] . . .

4
  FERC may regulate only interstate electricity transmission. With
some exceptions, it does “not have jurisdiction . . . over facilities
used in local distribution.” 16 U.S.C. § 824(b)(1). And it may not
regulate the retail sale of electricity, which is reserved to the states.
Id. § 824(a). That means that transmission owners or regional regu-
lators set the rules under which purely local generators connect to the
grid without input from FERC.
                                6
affecting . . . rates and charges” that should have been stated in
the tariff. 16 U.S.C. § 824d(c).

     FERC rejected that argument. It found that the System
Operator’s tariff did give notice that it would include nonjuris-
dictional projects in its interconnection analysis. FERC later
affirmed its decision when it denied Hecate’s petition for re-
hearing.

     Unhappy with FERC’s decision, Hecate petitioned for ju-
dicial review in this court. Because we agree with FERC that
the tariff was detailed enough, we deny Hecate’s petitions.

                                II

   Before getting to the merits, a brief detour to explain why
Hecate has standing.

    To have standing, Hecate must show that it was injured by
FERC’s decision and that “a favorable ruling from [this] court
would redress that injury.” West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct.
2587, 2606 (2022) (cleaned up).

     The System Operator intervened in this case, claiming that
Hecate lacks standing. It says that because there is an inde-
pendent and sufficient basis on which to affirm FERC’s deci-
sion, ruling for Hecate would not redress its injury. See Fogo
De Chao (Holdings) Inc. v. DHS, 769 F.3d 1127, 1149 (D.C.
Cir. 2014).

     The System Operator’s argument relies on a second issue
addressed by FERC’s decision in this case. In addition to Hec-
ate’s tariff-based challenge, FERC also rejected Hecate’s argu-
ment that the System Operator processed Hecate’s connection
request so slowly that it behaved “unjust[ly] or
                                7
unreasonabl[y].” JA 943; see 16 U.S.C. § 824d. Hecate did not
seek review of FERC’s ruling on that second challenge.

    The System Operator says that was a fatal error. It con-
tends that because FERC found that the System Operator rea-
sonably processed Hecate’s grid-connection request, it does not
matter how this court rules on Hecate’s tariff-based argument.

     But despite the System-Operator’s say-so, FERC’s ruling
on Hecate’s processing-time argument is not an independent
ground for upholding its decision on the tariff. Even if the Sys-
tem Operator processed Hecate’s request fairly, it was still re-
quired to include in its tariff all practices affecting rates. Id.
§ 824d(a), (c). And if this court holds that the tariff was not
detailed enough, on remand FERC could remedy Hecate’s in-
jury by finding that it is not responsible for the $10 million up-
grade. Cf. Cargill Power Markets, LLC, 141 FERC ¶ 61,141,
at 61,767 (2012) (describing a settlement that put a generator
“back into the . . . queue with priority established by [its] orig-
inal request date”).

    We may thus reach the merits of Hecate’s petitions.

                                III

     Our Administrative Procedure Act review of FERC’s de-
cision is deferential. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The Federal Power
Act’s “amorphous,” requirement that tariffs include “practices
affecting rates” means that FERC has “broad discretion” in giv-
ing the Act “concrete application.” City of Cleveland v. FERC,
773 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “So long as proper pro-
cedures have been followed, intelligible reasons have been
given, and factual findings are supported by record evidence,
[FERC] must be affirmed.” Id. at 1377.
                                  8
                                  A

     Hecate’s petitions fail because the System Operator’s tar-
iff was detailed enough. The tariff gave notice that the System
Operator would include nonjurisdictional projects in its inter-
connection study to determine responsibility for upgrade costs.

     To start, tariffs need not include all practices affecting
rates. “[I]t is no more possible to set forth all of the practices
affecting rates . . . than it is to set forth all of the terms and con-
ditions of a contract, leaving nothing whatever to be implied.”
Id. at 1370. Instead, a tariff need include “only those practices
that affect rates and service significantly, [and] that are realis-
tically susceptible of specification.” Id. at 1376. The tariff
need not include mere implementation details.

     Here, FERC’s order pointed to three cross-referenced sec-
tions of the tariff to find sufficient notice that the interconnec-
tion study would include information about nonjurisdictional
projects. Consider each in turn:

     Tariff Attachment Z, § 32.5: Stipulates that a “base
     case” will be “used for Interconnection Studies by the
     [System Operator].” JA 116.

     Tariff Attachment X, § 30.2.3: Defines “Base Case
     Data” to be the “power flow, short circuit[,] and sta-
     bility databases . . . from the last completed Annual
     Transmission Reliability Assessment conducted pur-
     suant to Attachment S.” JA 660.

     Tariff Attachment S, § 25.5.5.1(vii): Notes that the
     Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment will in-
     clude “all other changes to existing facilities . . . that
     are . . . reported by Market Participants to the [System
                                  9
     Operator] as scheduled to occur during the five[-]year
     cost allocation study planning period.” JA 224. 5

     Putting those provisions together, we agree with FERC
that the tariff gives notice that base-case data will include in-
formation about nonjurisdictional projects. First, Attachment
Z tells us that an interconnection study — like the one con-
ducted for Hecate’s connection request — will use a “base
case” to determine the impact of the new connection. Next,
Attachment X defines the data used in a “base case” to be those
data in the latest “Annual Transmission Reliability Assess-
ment.” JA 660. Finally, Attachment S provides that the Reli-
ability Assessment will include information provided by “Mar-
ket Participants” (like Central Hudson) about “changes to ex-
isting facilities” in the next five years. JA 224. 6 The nonjuris-
dictional projects count as “changes to existing facilities” be-
cause they increase (and thus “change”) the load on “Central
Hudson’s 69 kV line between the North Catskill and Coxsackie
Substations” (an “existing facility”). JA 224, 924-25.

    Our reading of Attachment S, Section 25.5.5.1(vii) is con-
firmed by another subsection in that provision. Section
25.5.5.1 lists the information included in the base case.

5
  During this litigation, amendments to the tariff renumbered the sec-
tions in Attachment S. FERC’s order and this opinion use the up-
dated section numbers. The version of the tariff in the record uses
the outdated section numbers.             The relevant provision
here — § 25.5.5.1 — is listed in the record as § 25.5.5.2. The current
§ 25.5.5.1, on which our analysis focuses, applies to “Class Years
subsequent to Class Year 2017.” JA 224. The old version of
§ 25.5.5.1 (which no longer appears in the tariff) applied to Class
Year 2017.
6
  New York Independent System Operator Open Access Transmis-
sion Tariff, § 1.13 (“Market Participants include: . . . Transmission
Owners.”).
                                 10
Subsection (vii) is a catch-all provision at the end of that list
(“all other changes”). JA 224 (emphasis added). When a
catch-all follows a list of enumerated items, courts read the
catch-all to cover things closely related to the list. See, e.g.,
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 142 S. Ct. 1783, 1789-90
(2022). Here, one item in the list is helpful. Subsection (vi)
states that the base case will include nonjurisdictional “trans-
mission projects . . . identified as ‘firm’ by the Connecting
Transmission Owner.” JA 223 (emphasis added). By its own
terms, that provision does not cover the nonjurisdictional gen-
eration project at issue here. But it does strongly suggest that
generation projects “identified as ‘firm’ ” by a transmission
owner (like the projects at issue here) fall within the catch-all
in subsection (vii). Id.

     Because the tariff gave Hecate fair notice that nonjurisdic-
tional projects would be used in the base case, the tariff in-
cluded all “practices . . . affecting . . . rates,” as required by the
Federal Power Act. 16 U.S.C. § 824d(c). Thus, FERC cor-
rectly concluded that the System Operator had not impermissi-
bly adopted a practice that was not in its tariff.

                                  B

     Pushing back, Hecate says the tariff should have expressly
included Central Hudson’s inclusion rule for reporting nonju-
risdictional projects to FERC. Relying on City & County of
San Francisco v. FERC, Hecate claims that the inclusion rule
was “realistically susceptible of specification” and “affect[ed]
rates and service significantly.” 24 F.4th 652, 661 (D.C. Cir.
2022) (cleaned up).

     That may be so. But even specifiable practices that signif-
icantly affect rates need not be included if they are clearly
                               11
implied by the tariff’s express terms. City of Cleveland, 773
F.2d at 1376.

      That is the case here. The tariff’s express terms said the
System Operator would include in its interconnection study in-
formation about “changes to existing facilities” reported to it
by transmission owners like Central Hudson. A clear implica-
tion of that provision is that transmission owners would have
some system for reporting changes to the System Operator. In
other words, Central Hudson’s reporting of nonjurisdictional
projects would have been “generally understood” from the tar-
iff’s provisions. Id. Thus, FERC correctly exercised its “broad
discretion” to decide what should be included in a tariff when
it found that including Central Hudson’s inclusion rule was un-
necessary. Id.

     Finally, Hecate contends that FERC’s reading of the tariff
cannot be squared with other tariff provisions. But it forfeited
that argument by failing to make it to FERC on rehearing. See
16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) (a petitioner may raise only arguments that
it “urged before [FERC] in [an] application for rehearing”).

      Despite that failure, Hecate may raise its argument on ap-
peal if it had “reasonable ground[s]” for not making it to FERC.
16 U.S.C. § 825l(b). And here, Hecate suggests that FERC’s
rehearing order was the “first time” that FERC relied upon “the
Base Case rules” to find that the tariff gave enough detail. Pet.
Final Reply Br. 19. So Hecate says that it could not have made
counterarguments based on those rules until after FERC issued
its rehearing order.

    We disagree. FERC’s initial order relied on the same tariff
provisions — § 32.5 of Attachment Z, § 30.2.3 of Attachment
X, and § 25.5.5.1(vii) of Attachment S — as its rehearing
                              12
order. Because Hecate could have raised, but did not raise, its
argument to FERC on rehearing, it cannot make it now.

                          *    *   *

     Because we agree with FERC that the System Operator’s
tariff had enough detail, we deny Hecate’s petitions for review.

                                                    So ordered.