Fourth Circuit Upholds FERC Transmission Incentives Order Despite Intervening Change in Policy

Jan 29, 2014

Reading Time : 1 min

The Fourth Circuit allowed the NC commission to raise the issue of the 2010 policy change for the first time on appeal, observing that, “absent extraordinary prescience it could not” have raised the issue in its 2008 petition, and that the Federal Power Act did not permit the filing of a renewed petition. However, the court held that FERC exercised its discretion appropriately in declining to rehear the Incentives Order and apply the revised policy. Considerations included VEPCO’s reliance on the nearly four-year-old Incentive Order and the broader issue of regulatory certainty with regard to Section 219 incentives. 

The Fourth Circuit also affirmed FERC’s decision to grant transmission incentives for the five challenged projects on the merits.  Among these issues was the question of cost. Section 219 requires that projects be “economically efficient,” and the NC commission argued that there were cheaper alternatives to some of the projects. However, the court concluded that the statute does not require that FERC grant incentives only to the most inexpensive approach.

Copies of the Fourth Circuit’s opinion may be found here, and copies of FERC’s August 29, 2008 Order Granting Transmission Rate Incentives and its May 22, 2012 Order Denying Rehearing may be found here and here

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 24, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) directing NYISO and NYISO transmission owners to show cause as to why NYISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 23, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) directing MISO and MISO transmission owners to show cause as to why MISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 23, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. directing PJM and PJM transmission owners to show cause as to why PJM’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 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.