D.C. Circuit Upholds Order No. 1000, FERC’s Landmark Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation Rulemaking Order

Aug 18, 2014

Reading Time : 3 min

FERC determined in Order No. 1000 that “the narrow focus of [the pre-Order No. 1000] planning requirements and shortcomings of [the pre-Order No. 1000] cost allocation practices create an environment that fails to promote the more efficient and cost-effective development of new transmission facilities, and that addressing these issues is necessary to ensure just and reasonable rates.”3 The D.C. Circuit agreed, concluding that there was “substantive evidence of a theoretical threat” to justify FERC’s adoption of the Order No. 1000 pursuant to an FPA Section 206 rulemaking proceeding.

In Order No. 1000, FERC mandated that a regional transmission planning process consider and evaluate transmission projects proposed by “non-incumbent” developers.  FERC therefore required that public utility transmission providers remove certain rights of first refusal (ROFR) from their federal tariffs and contracts, thereby eliminating the public utilities’ automatic right to construct transmission facilities within their service territories, including proposals submitted by third parties.4 In the wake of Order No. 1000, regional transmission planning groups across the country have adopted a variety of competitive processes for selecting transmission proposals and assigning construction rights.  The court held that FERC has the authority under FPA Section 206 to require removal of the federal ROFR and rejected Petitioners’ argument that the relationship between the federal ROFR and FERC-jurisdictional rates is too attenuated to trigger FERC’s Section 206 authority. 

The court also rejected Petitioners’ argument that the removal of the federal ROFR violated the so-called Mobile-Sierra doctrine,5 “which presumes that freely-negotiated wholesale-energy contracts are just and reasonable unless found to seriously harm the public interest.”  The court found that Petitioners’ Mobile-Sierra objection to the ROFR removal was not ripe because FERC had committed to consider the Mobile-Sierra arguments when it reviewed the public utility transmission providers’ tariffs that would be submitted in compliance with Order No. 1000.

Order No. 1000 also required public utility transmission providers to develop methods for allocating the costs of new transmission facilities to the entities that benefit from such facilities.  FERC did not impose a one-size-fits-all requirement dictating how such costs should be allocated; rather, FERC announced general cost allocation principles for the various regions to implement.  The court dismissed Petitioners’ argument that FERC does not have the authority to adopt cost allocation reforms.  In particular, the court rejected the argument that Section 206 does not authorize FERC to require utilities “to pay for the costs of transmission facilities developed by entities with whom they have no prior contractual or customer relationship and from whom they do not take transmission service.” 

Order No. 1000 further required that the transmission planning regions establish procedures to account for the impact that federal, state and local laws and regulations, including state renewable portfolio standards, have on the transmission system.  The court rejected Petitioners’ argument that FERC cannot require regions to take into account such public policy requirements because FERC does not have the statutory authority to generally promote the “public welfare.”  The court concluded that Order No. 1000 “does not promote any particular public policy or even the public welfare generally.  The mandate simply recognizes that state and federal policies might affect the transmission market and directs transmission providers to consider that impact in their planning decisions.”  The court also rejected Petitioners’ argument that the public policy mandate is too vague, finding that Order No. 1000 only required regions to establish the processes for evaluating public policies that may impact the transmission grid.

Finally, the D.C. Circuit rejected jurisdictional challenges to Order No. 1000 from non-public utilities such as municipal utilities.  Prior to Order No. 1000, in Order Nos. 8886 and 890,7 FERC required non-public utility transmission providers that seek access to a public utility’s transmission system on an open-access basis to provide reciprocal transmission service over their own systems on comparable terms.  Order No. 1000 included as part of this “reciprocity condition” that, in exchange for open access, such non-public utilities must also participate in regional transmission planning and cost allocation processes.  The court affirmed FERC here as well, finding that the Order No. 1000 reciprocity condition was “fundamentally the same” as that contained in earlier FERC orders and that FERC reasonably relied on the reciprocity condition to encourage non-public utility transmission providers to participate in regional transmission planning processes.


1 Transmission Planning & Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning & Operating Pub. Utils., Order No. 1000, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,323 (2011) (“Order No. 1000”), order on reh'g, Order No. 1000-A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132, order on reh'g, Order No. 1000-B, 141 FERC ¶ 61,044 (2012) (collectively, “Order No. 1000”).

2 16 U.S.C. § 824e.

3 Order No. 1000 at P 52.

4 The elimination of the federal ROFR was one of the most controversial aspects of Order No. 1000.

5 United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Serv. Corp., 350 U.S. 332 (1956); FPC v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 350 U.S. 348 (1956).

6 Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Servs. by Pub. Utils.; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Pub. Utils. & Transmitting Utils., Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996)

7 Preventing Undue Discrimination & Preference in Transmission Serv., Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 (2007).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

April 15, 2025

On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order (EO)1 directing several federal agencies and subagencies that regulate energy, environmental, and conservation matters,2 including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Energy (DOE), to establish conditional sunset dates for “regulations governing energy production.” The stated objective of the EO is to require agencies to periodically reexamine their regulations to ensure that they continue to serve the public good. For FERC, the order covers regulations promulgated under the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act (FUA)3, as amended, while DOE must consider regulations promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 1992), the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), as amended (collectively the Covered Regulations).4 To the extent the DOE has been directed to promulgate regulations under various sections of the NGA, FPA and FUA, and FERC has been directed to promulgate regulations specific to the statutes attributed to the DOE in the EO, the EO is silent. The EO expressly does not apply to those “regulatory permitting regimes authorized by statute.”5

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

April 10, 2025

On April 8, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) directing the Department of Energy (DOE) to take steps to expand the use of its emergency authority under Federal Power Act (FPA) Section 202(c) to require the retention of generation resources deemed necessary to maintain resource adequacy within at risk-regions of the bulk power system regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).1 The EO appears to envision a more active role for DOE in overseeing and supporting the resource adequacy of the grid that deviates from the historic use of Section 202(c) and touches on issues at the intersection of state and federal authority over resource planning.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

March 10, 2025

On March 5, 2025, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) approved Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC’s (GPLNG) request to extend a deadline to begin exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) from its terminal facility currently under construction in Sabine Pass, Texas for 18 months, from September 30, 2025, to March 31, 2027 (the Order). The Order amends GPLNG’s two existing long-term orders authorizing the export of domestically produced LNG to countries with which the United States does and does not have free trade agreements (FTA).1  The Order does not amend the authorizations’ end date, which remains December 31, 2050. Under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), the DOE may authorize exports to non-FTA countries following completion of a “public interest” review, whereas exports to FTA countries are deemed to be in the public interest and the DOE is directed to issue authorizations without modification or delay.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

March 4, 2025

Join projects & energy transition partner Shariff Barakat at Infocast’s Solar & Wind, where he will moderate the “Tax Equity Market Dynamics” panel.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 13, 2025

Oil & gas companies continue to identify and capitalize on opportunities related to the deployment of new energy technologies, with their approaches broadly maturing and coalescing around maximizing synergies, leveraging available subsidies and responding to regulatory drivers.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 11, 2025

On January 30, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) approved a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Office of Enforcement (OE) and Stronghold Digital Mining Inc. (Stronghold) resolving an investigation into whether Stronghold had violated the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) tariff and Commission regulations by limiting the quantity of energy made available to the market to serve a co-located Bitcoin mining operation.1 This order appears to be the first instance of a public enforcement action involving co-located load and generation and comes at a time when both FERC and market operators2 are scrutinizing the treatment of co-located load due to the rapid increase in demand associated with data center development.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 5, 2025

2024 was about post-consolidation deal flow and a steady uptick in activity across the oil & gas market. This year, mergers & acquisitions (M&A) activity looks set to take on a different tone as major consolidation plays bed down.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

January 30, 2025

The oil & gas industry is experiencing a capital resurgence, driven by stabilizing interest rates and renewed attention from institutional investors. Private equity is leading the charge with private credit filling the void in traditional energy finance and hybrid capital instruments gaining in popularity. Family offices are also playing a crucial role, providing long-term, flexible investments.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.