ORAL ARGUMENT HAS NOT BEEN SCHEDULED In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit No. 16-1015 __________ ERIE BOULEVARD HYDROPOWER, L.P., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. __________ ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION __________ BRIEF OF RESPONDENT FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION __________ Max Minzner General Counsel Robert H. Solomon Solicitor Elizabeth E. Rylander Scott Ray Ediger Attorneys For Respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20426 FINAL BRIEF: September 27, 2016 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES A. Parties All parties and intervenors appearing before this Court are identified in the Brief of Petitioner Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. B. Rulings Under Review 1. Hudson River-Black River Regulating District, 152 FERC ¶ 62,124 (2015) (2015 Initial Order), R.2085, JA 211; and 2. Hudson River-Black River Regulating District, 153 FERC ¶ 61,218 (2015) (2015 Rehearing Order), R.2168, JA 1. C. Related Cases This case has not previously been before this Court or any other court, and to counsel’s knowledge there are no related cases pending before this Court or elsewhere. Counsel concurs with Petitioner’s statements concerning the relationship of this case to Albany Eng’g Corp. v. FERC, 548 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 2008), and the dismissal of a previously consolidated case in D.C. Cir. No. 16- 1020. /s/ Elizabeth E. Rylander Elizabeth E. Rylander FINAL BRIEF: September 27, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ........................................................................... 1 STATUTES AND REGULATIONS.. ................................................................. 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................. 3 I. Statutory and Regulatory Background ...................................................... 3 II. History of Dispute ...................................................................................... 5 A. Events Leading Up To Albany Engineering Decision .................... 5 1. 2002 Licensing Proceeding ..................................................... 5 2. Erie Boulevard’s 2006 Settlement With the District .............. 8 3. 2006 Complaint Proceeding and Albany Engineering ............ 9 B. Orders on Remand of Albany Engineering ................................... 12 C. Orders Determining Headwater Benefits ...................................... 14 D. Federal District Court Proceeding ................................................. 17 III. The Proceeding Under Review ................................................................ 18 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................... 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ARGUMENT…… ............................................................................................. 21 I. Standard of Review .................................................................................. 21 II. FERC Reasonably Honored the 2006 Settlement ................................... 23 A. Erie Boulevard’s Remedy For Overcharges Lies In State Court, Not Before the Commission ...................................... 24 B. Erie Boulevard Settled Away Its State-Law Claims ..................... 31 C. The Commission Did Not Improperly “Change Course” From Its Earlier Orders ................................................................. 37 III. Erie Boulevard’s Remaining Arguments Do Not Justify Reversal ......... 39 A. Nothing Required the Parties To File the 2006 Settlement .......... 40 B. The Commission Correctly Interpreted the 2006 Settlement........ 41 C. Erie Boulevard Is Not Entitled To Interest ................................... 43 CONCLUSION….. ............................................................................................ 45 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COURT CASES: PAGE * Albany Eng’g Corp. v. FERC, 548 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ........................................... 9, 11-12, 25-26 Burlington Res., Inc. v. FERC, 396 F.3d 405 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ................................................................. 39 * Burlington Res., Inc. v. FERC, 513 F.3d 242 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ...................................................... 34-35, 39 Cal. Trout v. FERC, 572 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................... 3 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)................................................................................. 22 City of Arlington, Tex. v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013) ............................................................................. 22 City of Tacoma v. FERC, 460 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ................................................................... 22 Conn. Valley Elec. Co., Inc. v. FERC, 208 F.3d 1037 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ............................................................... 45 Farmington River Power Co. v. FERC, 103 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ........................................................... 4, 26 FERC v. Elec. Power Supply Ass’n, 136 S. Ct. 760 (2016) ............................................................................... 22 First Iowa Hydro-Elec. Coop. v. FPC, 328 U.S. 152 (1946)................................................................................... 3 _______________________ * Cases chiefly relied upon are marked with an asterisk. iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COURT CASES: PAGE Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist. v. Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 2014 WL 5502375 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2014) .............................. 17-18, 36 Kan. Cities v. FERC, 723 F.2d 82 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ................................................................... 23 Lomak Petroleum, Inc. v. FERC, 206 F.3d 1193, 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ..................................................... 22 Monongahela Power Co. v. Marsh, 809 F.2d 41 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ..................................................................... 3 Morgan Stanley Capital Gp. Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 554 U.S. 527 (2008)................................................................................. 35 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) ................................................................................... 22 Nat’l Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. FERC, 811 F.2d 1563, 1570 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ..................................................... 22 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. FPC, 379 F.2d 153 (D.C. Cir. 1967) ................................................................. 27 Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. FERC, 95 F.3d 62 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ............................................................... 23, 35 Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747 (1968)........................................................................... 24, 37 Pub. Utils. Comm’n of Calif. v. FERC, 367 F.3d 925 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 44 NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. FERC, 718 F.3d 947 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ................................................................. 37 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COURT CASES: PAGE Sithe/Independence Power Partners, L.P. v. FERC, 165 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ................................................................. 21 Tejas Power Corp. v. FERC, 908 F.2d 998 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ................................................................. 33 Tex. E. Transmission Corp. v. FERC, 306 F.2d 345 (5th Cir. 1962) ................................................................... 23 Union Elec. Co. v. FERC, 890 F.2d 1193 (D.C. Cir. 1989) .......................................................... 33-34 ADMINISTRATIVE CASES: * Albany Eng’g Corp. v. Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 127 FERC ¶ 61,174 (2009) (2009 Remand Order), on reh’g, 129 FERC ¶ 61,134 (2009) (2009 Remand Rehearing Order) ......... 12-13, 25-31, 38-39 Avista Corp., 93 FERC ¶ 61,116 (2000) ............................................................. 27-28, 37 Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 112 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2005) ...................................................................... 34 * Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 88 FERC ¶ 61,176 (1999) ............................................................. 27-28, 37 Fourth Branch Assoc. (Mechanicville) v. Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 117 FERC ¶ 61,321 (2006) (2006 Complaint Order), reh’g denied, 119 FERC ¶ 61,141 (2007) (2007 Complaint Rehearing Order) ........ 9-11, 30, 38, 41 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ADMINISTRATIVE CASES: PAGE Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 100 FERC ¶ 61,319 (2002) (2002 License Order), on reh’g sub nom. Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. (2003 License Rehearing Order), 102 FERC ¶ 61,133 (2003) ..................................................... 5, 7-9, 26, 37 Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 140 FERC ¶ 62,089 (2012) (2012 Headwater Benefits Order), on reh’g, 141 FERC ¶ 61,277 (2012) ................................................ 15-16, 30-32, 42 Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 152 FERC ¶ 62,124 (2015) (2015 Initial Order), on reh’g, 153 FERC ¶ 61,218 (2015) (2015 Rehearing Order) ........... 8-9, 17-20, 24, 28-30, 33-36, 38-44 * Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 97 FERC ¶ 61,084 (2001) ............................................................. 27-28, 37 STATUTES: Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) ....................................................................................