Representative Matters

  • Represented the Mississippi Public Service Commission, the Missouri Public Service Commission, and the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission, and argued on behalf of customer intervenors, in the D.C. Circuit’s review of FERC’s order in the long-running MISO transmission return on equity complaint. The court rejected all of the MISO Transmission Owners’ challenges, upholding FERC’s reduced rate and refunds dating back to 2016. MISO Transmission Owners v. FERC, 177 F.4th 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2026).
  • Represented Buckeye Power, Inc., and presented oral argument, in the Ohio transmission owners’ appeals of FERC’s decision to terminate their receipt of a 50-basis-point return on equity incentive adder. The Sixth Circuit ruled for Buckeye on all issues in January 2025, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in estimated savings to Ohio customers, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in November 2025. Dayton Power & Light Co. v. FERC, 126 F.4th 1107 (6th Cir. 2025), denied sub nom. FirstEnergy Serv. Co. v. FERC, 146 S.Ct. 397, cert. denied sub nom. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Co. v. FERC, 146 S.Ct. 398 (2025).

    Jeff also represented the California Department of Water Resources State Water Project and the Northern California Power Agency the Ninth Circuit in the Ninth Circuit litigation over Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) eligibility for the same ROE incentive adder. The Ninth Circuit upheld FERC’s order finding PG&E ineligible to include this incentive adder in its rates. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. FERC, No. 24-2527, 2025 WL 1912363 (9th Cir. July 11, 2025), cert. denied, 2026 WL 490575 (Feb. 23, 2026).

  • Represents the City and County of San Francisco in FERC proceedings on PG&E’s Wholesale Distribution Tariff. In the third tariff update, FERC approved a settlement preserving San Francisco’s access to lower-voltage service and resolving numerous rate and non-rate issues. FERC also ruled in San Francisco’s favor, finding in that proceeding that PG&E’s cost allocation for new and upgraded distribution facilities unlawfully discriminated against wholesale customers. Gas and Elec. Co., 193 FERC ¶ 61,034 (2025), on reh’g 195 FERC ¶ 61,035 (2026).
  • Represented the City and County of San Francisco in successfully challenging FERC orders in two separate proceedings regarding PG&E’s attempts to impose barriers to wholesale distribution service—one involving requirements for unnecessary expensive technical requirements, and the other unduly narrowing the City’s rights under the Federal Power Act to continue serving legacy customers. City & Cnty. of S.F. v. FERC, 24 F.4th 652 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
  • Represented the Transmission Access Policy Study Group in FERC’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proceeding on large load interconnection, urging FERC to protect wholesale transmission customers from data center-driven cost shifts.
  • Assisted joint action agencies in drafting plans for implementing PURPA and in successfully obtaining FERC waivers and terminations of certain PURPA obligations.
  • Represented the District of Columbia Government in Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia proceedings concerning AltaGas’s proposed acquisition of Washington Gas. Following an evidentiary hearing, the case was resolved by settlement. In re the Merger of AltaGas Ltd. & WGL Holdings, Inc., No. 1142, Order No. 19396 (D.C. Pub. Serv. Comm’n June 29, 2018).
  • Represented the City of West Des Moines in defending against a petition for an FCC declaratory ruling filed by an incumbent cable operator under section 253 of the Communications Act of 1934. Following submission of the City’s answer to the petition, the parties settled, and the petition was withdrawn.
  • Represented a coalition of local government organizations in the FCC rulemaking proceeding, and subsequent appeal, on federal regulations governing deployment of 5G small cell attachments in public rights-of-way and on public property.

Related News