Nebraska Public Power District v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 19-1553 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
SPP, a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), is authorized by the Commission to provide electric transmission services across a multi-state region. Pursuant to SPP's license-plate rate design, SPP is divided into different zones, and customers in each zone pay rates based on the cost of transmission facilities in that zone.
The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review brought by NPPD of FERC's approval of SPP's placement of Tri-State into Zone 17. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Commission's finding that Tri-State's placement into Zone 17 was just and reasonable. In this case, because the Commission stated plausible and articulable reasons for why the costs and benefits were comparable in this case, the court could not say that its cost-causation analysis was arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, the Commission did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in deciding that Tri-State's placement into Zone 17 was just and reasonable.
Court Description: [Smith, Author, with Loken and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Substantial evidence on the record as a whole supported FERC's determination that the benefits Nebraska Public Power District and other facilities in their zone received from Tri-State's transmission facilities were roughly commensurate with the cost allocated to the zone as a result of Tri-State's placement in that zone; because FER stated plausible and articulable reasons why the costs and benefits were comparable, the court could not say that FERC's cost-causation analysis was arbitrary and capricious; the law does not require FERC to consider or analyze Nebraska Public Power's argument that Tri-State be placed in a different zone because FERC's role is simply to determine whether the proposed placement of Tri-State in the chosen zone is just and reasonable.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.