On June 2, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) denied nineteen consolidated petitions for review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) compliance determinations with EPA’s 2008 ground-level ozone standards, known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”).  By denying review, the D.C. Circuit affirmed EPA’s authority to make such compliance determinations under the Clean Air Act, and upheld EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act and EPA’s corresponding obligations as applied to the NAAQS.

On May 15, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) denied a petition for review of FERC’s order determining that the La Grange Hydroelectric Project (“Project”) fell within the mandatory licensing provisions of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”).  In doing so, the D.C. Circuit rejected arguments made by the owners of the Project – the Turlock Irrigation District and the Modesto Irrigation District (collectively, the “Districts”) – that FERC’s decision was arbitrary and capricious for asserting jurisdiction over a historical hydro facility that owners contend does not qualify for FPA’s mandatory licensing triggers.

On May 20, 2015, the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of California (“District Court”) upheld FERC’s decision that it had jurisdiction over Barclays Bank PLC and four traders (collectively, “Barclays”) for allegedly manipulating electricity markets in the West.  In doing so, the District Court held that FERC maintained jurisdiction, and not the Commodity and Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”).  The District Court also ruled that FERC’s jurisdiction under Federal Power Act (“FPA”) sections 201 and 222 – FERC’s authority to regulate transmission and sale of wholesale electric energy in interstate commerce and FERC’s anti-manipulation rule, respectively – was appropriate.

On April 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Ninth Circuit”) held that FERC failed to comply with the court’s remand order in a 2004 case involving the California Energy Crisis—California ex rel. Lockyer v. FERC (“Lockyer”)—by improperly structuring its administrative fact-finding proceeding to focus solely on the accumulation by wholesale power sellers of excessive market share, and not including an analysis of possible deficiencies in transaction reporting by those sellers.  The court remanded the case back to FERC for further proceedings.

On April 24, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) denied Petitioners’ (Citizens of the town of Myersville) review challenging FERC’s orders approving Dominion Transmission, Inc.’s (“Dominion”) “Allegheny Storage Project,” and specifically FERC’s approval of the construction of a new natural gas compressor station in Myersville, Maryland (the “Myersville Compressor”).   In denying the petition, the D.C. Circuit concluded that each of the Petitioners’ challenges lacked merit.