On July 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) issued an opinion in Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. FERC, addressing a challenge by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”), Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (collectively, the “California Utilities”) to a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) order denying PG&E’s request for an “RTO Adder” for its participation in the California Independent System Operator Corporation (“CAISO”). The Utilities argued that they were entitled to this incentive under section 219(c) of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), but FERC determined that their participation in CAISO was not voluntary due to California law mandating their participation, and thus they were ineligible for the adder. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed FERC’s order.

On July 15, 2025, FERC initiated an investigation, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), to assess whether the Western Electricity Coordinating Council’s (“WECC”) soft price cap on spot market energy sales should be eliminated. FERC preliminarily concluded that the WECC soft price cap is no longer just and reasonable because of changes in the circumstances in the WECC market, and thus proposed its elimination pending the results of the investigation. FERC requested that interested parties submit comments within 30 days of its order (i.e., by August 14, 2025). FERC expects to issue an order on the results of its investigation by December 30, 2025.

On July 11, 2025, the D.C. Circuit upheld PJM Interconnection L.L.C.’s (“PJM”) assessment of $12 million in penalties against Energy Harbor, LLC (“Energy Harbor”) for failing to perform when called upon by PJM during a major winter storm in December 2022. The D.C. Circuit held that PJM-approved maintenance at Energy Harbor’s coal-fired generation facility, the W.H. Sammis Plant (“Sammis Plant”), was not the sole cause of the Sammis Plant’s nonperformance, and therefore Energy Harbor was not excepted from penalties under PJM’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”).

On June 26, 2025, FERC upheld PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (PJM) proposal to revise its Capacity Performance Quantifiable Risk (CPQR) Offer Cap. Several public interest organizations and PJM’s Independent Market Monitor (Market Monitor) filed requests for rehearing, arguing that PJM’s tariff changes did not adequately differentiate between costs directly related to capacity commitments and those incurred for other reasons, potentially leading to unfair rates. FERC disagreed, stating that PJM’s definition of CPQR provides a clear principle for identifying relevant costs and prevents sellers from inflating offer caps with unrelated expenses. The Commission emphasized that the review process by PJM and the Market Monitor ensures adherence to this principle, maintaining fair and competitive market practices.

On June 20, 2025, FERC approved Southwest Power Pool, Inc.’s (SPP) revisions to its Western Energy Imbalance Service (WEIS) tariff to allow a participating balancing authority to initiate a market hold due to reliability concerns and to specify how SPP will settle the market in the event of such a market hold. FERC found that the revisions will allow participating balancing authorities to timely respond to reliability-based events while avoiding disruptions to the WEIS market.

On June 18, 2025, FERC temporarily raised the cost limits for blanket certificate natural gas pipeline projects constructed and placed into service by May 31, 2027, from $41 million to $61.65 million. Citing what it called a pressing nationwide near-term demand for expanded natural gas transportation capacity and reliability concerns…

On May 27, 2025, FERC addressed arguments raised on rehearing of a January 30, 2025 order, which accepted the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.’s (“MISO”) proposal to modify its generator interconnection study process by implementing a queue cap and exemptions to that cap (the “Queue Cap Order”). In doing so, FERC reaffirmed that MISO’s proposed queue cap and exemptions align with Order No. 2003’s independent entity variations for regional transmission organizations and independent system operators.

On May 22, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”) addressed a dispute between ANR Pipeline Company (“ANR”) and FERC. The case centered on the interpretation of ANR’s tariff and whether it required shippers to deliver and take gas simultaneously, even for short-notice shipments. The Fifth Circuit denied ANR Pipeline Company’s petition for review, affirming FERC’s decision that ANR’s tariff did not require simultaneous delivery for short-notice shipments. The court found the tariff ambiguous and emphasized ANR’s longstanding practice of not requiring simultaneous delivery, which supported FERC’s position.

On May 23, 2025, FERC upheld on rehearing its prior orders authorizing Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC to build a new liquified natural gas (“LNG”) export terminal (“CP2 LNG Terminal”) and granting Venture Global CP Express, LLC (together, with Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC, “Venture Global”) a certificate of public convenience and necessity (“CPCN”) to construct and operate a new natural gas pipeline (“CP Express Pipeline,” together, with the CP2 LNG Terminal, the “Projects”) to connect the CP2 LNG Terminal to the existing natural gas pipeline grid (“May 23 Rehearing Order”). In its May 23 Rehearing Order, FERC continued to find that the Projects are environmentally acceptable actions and not inconsistent with the public interest.

On May 29, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado that dramatically changes the way courts scrutinize federal agencies’ environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for a five-justice conservative majority (with Justice Neil Gorsuch abstaining), held that (a) courts must afford federal agencies “substantial judicial deference” regarding both the scope and contents of their environmental analyses; and (b) courts do not need to consider the effects of the action to the extent they are “separate in time or place” from the proposed project. The ruling gives federal agencies permission to greatly streamline their NEPA analyses at a time when those agencies are rapidly being drained of their resources and facing increasing pressure to expedite lengthy permitting processes.