
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81308-81309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32693]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-44-000]


Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC; Notice Rejecting Request for 
Extension of Time

December 22, 2015.
    On December 3, 2015, the Commission issued an order denying a 
complaint filed by Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC (Sage Grouse) 
against PacifiCorp under Rule 206(a) of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure.\1\ On December 16, 2015, Sage Grouse filed a 
motion for extension of time and waiver, asking the Commission to grant 
a 30-day extension of time for Sage Grouse to determine whether to file 
a request for rehearing of the December 3 Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC, 153 FERC ] 61,272 (2015) 
(December 3 Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act,\2\ an 
aggrieved party must file an application for rehearing within thirty 
days after the issuance of the Commission's order. Moreover, the courts 
and the Commission have repeatedly recognized that the time period by 
which a party may file an application for rehearing of a

[[Page 81309]]

Commission order is statutorily established at 30 days and that the 
Commission has no discretion to extend that deadline.\3\ Because the 
30-day rehearing deadline is a statutory deadline, it cannot be 
extended, and Sage Grouse's request for a 30-day extension must 
therefore be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 825l(a) (2012).
    \3\ See, e.g., City of Campbell v. FERC, 770 F.2d 1180, 1183 
(D.C. Cir. 1985) (``The 30-day time requirement of the [FPA] is as 
much a part of the jurisdictional threshold as the mandate to file 
for a rehearing.''); Boston Gas Co. v. FERC, 575 F.2d 975, 977-98, 
979 (1st Cir. 1978) (describing identical rehearing provision of 
Natural Gas Act as ``a tightly structured and formal provision. 
Neither the Commission or the courts are given any form of 
jurisdictional discretion.''); see also PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 
138 FERC ] 61,160 (2012) (rejecting request for clarification as 
untimely request for rehearing); La. Energy and Power Auth., 117 
FERC ] 61,258 (2006); Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, 
Inc., 112 FERC ] 61,211, at P 10 (2005); Texas-New Mexico Power Co., 
107 FERC ] 61,316, at P 22 (2004); Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 
105 FERC ] 61,322, at P 9 (2003); Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 95 
FERC ] 61,130, at 61,411-12 (2001).

    Dated: December 22, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32693 Filed 12-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


