Many Commission decisions are challenged or enforced in the Federal courts. The Office of the Solicitor, OGC, has independent authority to defend the Commission in court, typically the U.S. Courts of Appeals, unless the matter goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The defense normally entails preparing motions and briefs and presenting oral arguments before three-judge panels. It may also involve responding to petitions for writ of mandamus and requests to stay the underlying Commission action. At times, the Office files briefs as a "friend of the court," and in certain limited circumstances also defends the Commission or enforces its initiatives in the U.S. district courts.

1. Minisink Residents for Environmental Preservation and Safety, et al. v. FERC
   No. 12-1481 (D.C. Cir. filed 12/19/2012)
   
   Certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Millennium Pipeline to construct and operate compressor station and related facilities in the Town of Minisink, New York. Millennium Pipeline Co., 140 FERC ¶ 61,045 (2012), reh’g denied, 141 FERC ¶ 61,198 (2012).
   FERC Docket No. CP11-515


2. NO Gas Pipeline, et al. v. FERC
   Nos. 12-1470, et al. (D.C. Cir. filed 12/5/2012 and later)
   
   Certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Texas Eastern and Algonquin, wholly-owned subsidiaries of Spectra Energy, to construct and operate New Jersey-New York Expansion Project, to increase firm transportation service to the New York City metropolitan area. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 139 FERC ¶ 61,138 (2012), reh’g denied, 141 FERC ¶ 61,043 (2012).
   FERC Docket No. CP11-56
   


3. FirstEnergy Service Co. v. FERC
   No. 12-1461 (D.C. Cir. filed 11/19/2012)
   
   PJM allocation to new member (ATSI) a share of the costs of high voltage regional transmission expansion projects that were planned prior to the new member’s integration into PJM. American Transmission Systems, Inc.; FirstEnergy Serv. Co. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 129 FERC ¶ 61,249 (2009), order on reh’g, 130 FERC ¶ 61,171 (2010), order on reh’g, 140 FERC ¶ 61,226 (2012).
   FERC Docket No. ER09-1589, et al.


4. Western Refining Co., L.P., et al. v. FERC
   Nos. 12-1453, et al. (D.C. Cir. filed 11/19/2012 and later)
   
Opinion, after hearing and ALJ initial decision, addressing reasonableness of revised rates for shipment on SFPP’s East Line; various cost of service rate issues. SFPP, L.P., Opinion 522, 140 FERC ¶ 61,220 (2012), reh’g pending.
FERC Docket No. IS09-437, et al.


5. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP v. FERC
   No. 12-60892 (5th Cir. filed 11/16/2012)
   
Filing of revised pro forma service agreement for pipeline service; findings regarding reservation charge credits. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 138 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2012), order on reh’g & compl., 140 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2012).
FERC Docket No. RP12-318


6. People of the State of California, et al. v. FERC
   No. 12-73627 (9th Cir. filed 11/7/2012)
   
Appeal of California Parties of orders on remand from Pub. Util. Comm’n of the State of Cal. v. FERC, 462 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2006), clarifying scope of hearing on remaining refund issues arising from 2000-2001 California energy crisis. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services, et al., 129 FERC ¶ 61,147 (2009), order on reh’g, 135 FERC ¶ 61,183 (2011), reh’g denied, 141 FERC ¶ 61,087 (2012).
FERC Docket No. El00-95, et al.


7. TC Ravenswood, LLC v. FERC
   No. 12-1434 (D.C. filed 10/31/2012)
   Rates for Ravenswood’s operation of a dual-fuel (natural gas or fuel oil) generator. TC Ravenswood, LLC, 133 FERC ¶ 61,087 (2010), reh’g dismissed, 140 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2012).
   FERC Docket No. ER10-1359


8. PSEG Cos., PPL Cos. and Exelon Cos. v. FERC
   No. 12-1382 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/17/2012)
   Transmission planning under PJM-administered tariff; eligibility of non-incumbent transmission owners to build economic expansion projects, receiving cost-based or cost-of-service compensation, under PJM Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) procedures. Primary Power, LLC, 131 FERC ¶ 61,015 (2010), order on reh’g, 140 FERC ¶ 61,052 (2012); Central Transmission, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 131 FERC ¶ 61,243 (2010), order on reh’g, 140 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2012).
   FERC Docket No. ER10-253, et al.


9. Electric Power Supply Ass’n v. FERC
   No. 12-1381 (D.C. Cir. filed 9/17/2012)
   
   Midwest ISO’s compliance filing to implement demand response compensation requirements of Order No. 745. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 137 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2011), order on reh’g & compl, 140 FERC ¶ 61,059 (2012).
   FERC Docket No. ER11-4337