18 CFR 385.214 - Intervention (Rule 214)

Cite as18 CFR 385.214
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
5433 practice notes
  • Electric utilities (Federal Power Act): Hydroelectric licensing regulations,
    • United States
    • Federal Register August 25, 2003
    • August 25, 2003
    ...requirement to file a motion to intervene.\377\ \377\ 68 FR at p. 14013; IV FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,568 at p. 34,737, and proposed 18 CFR 385.214. No commenter objected to this proposal. Various commenters request that we clarify that the intervention by notice policy extends to, or wi......
  • Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
    • United States
    • Federal Register August 25, 2003
    • August 25, 2003
    ...requirement to file a motion to intervene.\377\ \377\ 68 FR at p. 14013; IV FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,568 at p. 34,737, and proposed 18 CFR 385.214. No commenter objected to this proposal. Various commenters request that we clarify that the intervention by notice policy extends to, or wi......
  • California Trout v. F.E.R.C., No. 07-73664.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 20, 2009
    ...has promulgated Rule 214, which governs what persons may intervene and thereby become parties in Commission proceedings. See 18 C.F.R. § 385.214. Under the rule, a person who fails to intervene may not become a party and later challenge the ultimate agency determination. See Covelo Indian C......
  • City of Orrville, Ohio v. F.E.R.C., No. 97-1352
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 30, 1998
    ...motion, the Commission erred in two respects: (1) rather than assess Orrville's motion according to the five factors set forth in 18 C.F.R. § 385.214(d)(1) (1997), the Commission applied an "extraordinary circumstances" test; (2) even if applicable, the Commission misapplied the "extraordin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
87 cases
  • California Trout v. F.E.R.C., No. 07-73664.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 20, 2009
    ...has promulgated Rule 214, which governs what persons may intervene and thereby become parties in Commission proceedings. See 18 C.F.R. § 385.214. Under the rule, a person who fails to intervene may not become a party and later challenge the ultimate agency determination. See Covelo Indian C......
  • City of Orrville, Ohio v. F.E.R.C., No. 97-1352
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 30, 1998
    ...motion, the Commission erred in two respects: (1) rather than assess Orrville's motion according to the five factors set forth in 18 C.F.R. § 385.214(d)(1) (1997), the Commission applied an "extraordinary circumstances" test; (2) even if applicable, the Commission misapplied the "extraordin......
  • Riverkeeper v. U.S. Coast Guard, No. 12–73385.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 5, 2014
    ...73 Fed.Reg. 65301 (Nov. 3, 2008). Riverkeeper and other environmental organizations intervened in the FERC proceedings pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.214 on November 17, 2008.4 On April 24, 2009, the captain of the port issued the letter of recommendation at issue in this case, and the accompa......
  • State of California ex rel. Lockyer v. F.E.R.C., No. 02-70336.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 15, 2003
    ...to intervene must state, to the extent known, the position taken by the movant and the basis in fact and law for that position." 18 C.F.R. § 385.214(b)(1). The Commission's Rule 713 provides [a]ny request for rehearing must: (1) State concisely the alleged error in the final decision or fin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Skadden Energy Law Handbook - Third Edition (Dec. 2015)
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • December 14, 2015
    ...135 Ex Parte Contacts and Separation of Functions, Order No. 718, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,279 at P 2 (2008) (codified at 18 C.F.R. § 385.214). FERC INVESTIGATIONS AND AUDITS 27 the Commission’s discretion. 136 In the early years following enactment of EPAct 2005, investigations typically r......
  • "Skadden Energy Law Handbook: Fourth Edition (November 2016)"
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • November 18, 2016
    ...PRESERVATION 28 Ex Parte Contacts and Separation of Functions, Order No. 718, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,279 at P 2 (2008) (codified at 18 C.F.R. § 385.214). 18 C.F.R. § 1b.9. 30 Preliminary Notice of Violations, 129 FERC ¶ 61,247 at P 3. 31 Id. 32 Preliminary Notice of Violations Rehearing O......
  • Skadden Energy Law Handbook - 2014
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • November 11, 2014
    ...28 Ex Parte Contacts and Separation of Functions, Order No. 718, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,279 at P 2 (2008) (codified at 18 C.F.R. § 385.214). FERC INVESTIGATIONS AND AUDITS 25 the Commission’s discretion.29 In the early years following enactment of EPAct 2005, investigations typically rema......
  • FERC's Enforcement Program
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • June 24, 2008
    ...to Show Cause, 123 FERC ¶ 61,159, at P 3 (2008) (citing 18 C.F.R. § 1b.19). Id. Id. at P 4-5. Id. Id. Id. Id. 18 C.F.R. § 385.2202. 18 C.F.R. § 385.214. Ex Parte Contacts and Separation Functions, 123 FERC ¶ 61,158 (2008) (comments due July 21, 2008). 18 C.F.R. § 385.2201. See Energy Transf......
1 books & journal articles
  • Funding and Facilitating Public Participation at FERC
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 51-7, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...supra note 100, at 4. 103. he same process could apply if an unopposed motion to intervene is granted automatically after 15 days, 18 C.F.R. §385.214(c)(1) (2021), because §319 does not tie compensation to an “order,” per se, but to the “approval, in whole or in part, of a position advocate......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT