Question Presented (AI Summary)
When may FERC and a court interpret a tariff inconsistently with a settlement contract and utility filing letter?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. When all parties to a proceeding at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) enter a contract of settlement that provides for the filing of a tariff amendment and dictates its content, may FERC and a court later interpret the tariff inconsistently with not only the contract, but also the utility’s Filing Letter describing the amendment? 2. May a court of appeals affirm a FERC ruling for reasons not articulated by FERC, but conceived by the court, and when the court interpreted and, when it connects two “explanatory equivalents,” to mean both or either “‘unambiguously,’” in conflict with ordinary usage and determinations of this Court and other courts of appeals?
2022-06-13
Petition DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2022-05-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/9/2022.
2022-05-13
Reply of petitioner Louisiana Public Service Commission filed.
2022-05-04
Brief of respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in opposition filed.
2022-04-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 4, 2022.
2022-04-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 4, 2022 to May 4, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-02-16
Waiver of right of respondent Arkansas Public Service Commission to respond filed.
2022-02-16
Waiver of right of respondent Entergy Services, LLC to respond filed.
2022-02-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 4, 2022.
2022-02-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 3, 2022 to April 4, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 3, 2022)