Midland Power Coop. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n

6 Citing cases

  1. Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n

    854 F.3d 692 (D.C. Cir. 2017)   Cited 10 times

    As we made clear in Midland Power Co-op. v. FERC , FPA section 313(b) "limits review to orders issued in proceedings under the [Federal Power] Act—and [PURPA] § 210 is not part of th[at] Act." 774 F.3d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Instead, review of section 210(h) enforcement actions occurs on appeal from a district court's final decision.

  2. Cherokee Cnty. Cogeneration Partners v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n

    40 F.4th 638 (D.C. Cir. 2022)

    Indus. Cogenerators v. FERC , 47 F.3d 1231, 1234 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ; see also, e.g. , Midland Power Coop. v. FERC , 774 F.3d 1, 5–6 (D.C. Cir. 2014). We review such declaratory orders only after a qualifying facility or FERC brings an enforcement action in district court and appeals.

  3. Johnson v. Everyrealm, Inc.

    657 F. Supp. 3d 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 39 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the EFAA blocks arbitration as to the entire case rather than just the claims of sexual harassment or assault

    The provision is congressionally enacted text. See Conyers v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 388 F.3d 1380, 1382 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Statutes at Large provide the evidence of the laws of the United States."), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1171, 125 S.Ct. 1360, 161 L.Ed.2d 150 (2005); 1 U.S.C. § 112; see also Midland Power Co-op. v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm'n, 774 F.3d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (where statutes at large and code conflict, the former prevails). As the Federal Circuit recently explained, in refuting an argument that the "Effective Date" section of an act lacked substantive effect because of its placement in a statutory note:

  4. Swecker v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n

    1:21-cv-1590-RCL (D.D.C. Sep. 28, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    These rates are commonly referred to as a utility's “avoided cost.” See Midland Power Co-op. v. FERC, 774 F.3d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

  5. Swecker v. Cooperative

    253 F. Supp. 3d 274 (D.D.C. 2017)   Cited 11 times

    These rates are commonly referred to as a utility's "avoided cost." Midland Power Co–op. v. FERC, 774 F.3d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 2014). FERC regulations provide that electric utilities must submit relevant data to the state regulatory authority so that the "avoided cost" can be determined.

  6. Johnston Equities Assocs. v. Town of Johnston

    277 A.3d 716 (R.I. 2022)   Cited 4 times

    In Cruz , we adopted the First Circuit's reasoning that "[a] void contract is one that cannot be enforced," and that "a challenge to a mortgage assignment on the ground that the assignor ‘never possessed a legally transferrable interest’ alleges a void, as opposed to voidable, assignment." Cruz , 108 A.3d at 997 (quoting Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. , 774 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2014) ).