Senior decision-makers come together to connect around strategies and business trends affecting utilities.


FERC's New Approach To Requests for Rehearing

Paul Dumais's picture
CEO, Dumais Consulting

Owner and CEO of Dumais Consulting ( which provides expert ratemaking services to energy companies. Dr. Dumais is a ratemaking and regulatory expert who specializes on...

  • Member since 2018
  • 158 items added with 121,108 views
  • Sep 23, 2020

FERC has in the past routinely acted on rehearing requests, by the 30th day, by issuing delegated orders – called tolling orders.  Those orders granted rehearing for the limited purpose of extending the time allowed for the Commission to consider the merits of a rehearing request.  This practice allowed the Commission time to prepare comprehensive rehearing orders addressing the concerns raised by parties in nearly all cases, but also delayed the ability of parties to seek judicial review.
On June 30, 2020, in Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC, the full D.C. Circuit issued a decision addressing the timeliness of Commission action on requests for rehearing under the Natural Gas Act.  The court recognized that the Commission’s responsibilities on rehearing are complex, and also that the tolling order practice had been affirmed by the courts in decisions dating back to 1969.  But the court held that, under the plain language of the Natural Gas Act, tolling orders do not amount to action on rehearing requests, and thus do not prevent rehearing requests from being “deemed” denied after 30 days.  The court also highlighted the Commission’s authority, even where rehearing has been deemed denied by operation of this statutory deadline, to “modify or set aside, in whole or in part” the underlying order until the record on appeal is filed with a reviewing court.
Beginning the day after the court’s decision, the Commission began implementing changes to its rehearing practices both to expedite consideration of rehearing requests and to keep the public apprised of the status of Commission proceedings.  Although the Allegheny decision arose under the Natural Gas Act, because the Federal Power Act contains identical language, the Commission is applying its post-Allegheny approach to Federal Power Act proceedings.   

First, the Commission no longer issues tolling orders in cases arising under the Federal Power Act or the Natural Gas Act.  Instead, where the Commission is not acting on the merits of a rehearing request by the 30-day deadline, the Office of the Secretary generally will issue one of two types of notices no earlier than the 31st day after a rehearing request is received:  a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law, or a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law and Providing for Further Consideration.  As the names suggest, these Notices have an important feature in common:  they both acknowledge that, because the 30-day deadline in the Natural Gas Act or the Federal Power Act has passed, rehearing may be deemed denied by operation of law.  The first type, a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law stops there and announces that the Commission does not intend to issue a merits order in response to the rehearing request.  The second type of Notice – a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law and Providing for Further Consideration – takes an extra step.  After indicating that rehearing may be deemed denied by operation of law, this Notice states the Commission’s intention to issue a further order addressing issues raised on rehearing, citing the Commission’s authority to “modify or set aside” the underlying order.  Importantly, neither of these Notices rule on the rehearing request; they simply announce the status of the proceeding as a means to keep the public informed. 

Second, orders on rehearing issued after the 30-day mark now reflect the exercise of the Commission’s authority to “modify or set aside, in whole or in part” a prior order until the point that the record on appeal is filed in a reviewing court.  As such these orders now use the statutory terms “modify or set aside” when describing the Commission’s determinations:  they use the phrase “modifying the discussion” where the Commission is providing further explanation of the underlying order but is not changing the outcome of the underlying order; and they use the phrase ‘set aside” when the Commission’s rehearing order is changing the outcome.  Standardizing this terminology is intended to provide guidance to parties in discerning whether the Commission’s order is final, such that aggrieved parties may proceed to court. 
Third, and finally, FERC recognizes that decisions regarding if or when to file a petition for review may be complex, particularly in cases where the 30-day deadline has passed and the rehearing request may be deemed denied by operation of law, but the Commission, through a notice, has announced its intent to issue a further merits order.  In all cases, aggrieved parties continue to have 60 days after the denial by operation of law to file a petition for review. 

The changes in Commission practice discussed today, among others, are intended to allow appeals of Commission orders to proceed on a complete administrative record, including a rehearing order, in a timely manner.  Nonetheless, this new dynamic, where an appeal may be filed before the Commission has issued a further merits order, may present a need for earlier coordination among parties to an appeal.  To facilitate that coordination, FERC Staff encourages parties contemplating an appeal, if uncertain about how to protect their right to judicial review, to seek guidance from attorneys in the Commission’s Solicitor’s Office within the Office of the General Counsel. 

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Sep 24, 2020

Thanks for sharing about this, Paul. Are there parties that oppose this change to the approach? You noted that there may be the need for earlier coordination for an appeal-- are there any particular groups that have expressed concerns about challenges this may bring about? 

Paul Dumais's picture
Paul Dumais on Sep 24, 2020

FERC made this change as a result of a DC Court of Appeals decision.  I think most stakeholders would favor this change as it allows stakeholders tocommence the appeal of FERC decision's earlier than with the prior tolling order process that FERC was using.   

Paul Dumais's picture
Thank Paul for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »