PJM would dictate grid expansion, even if not needed for reliability, and then push the cost of the upgrades on those who use them the most.
Chairman Pat Wood and his...
- this court to set aside their contract to purchase electric energy on the theory that PEPCO's rates are too high. The court has concluded that it should not entertain such a request and that, if Debtors wish to pursue relief of that kind, they should go to FERC.").
- at 313 (citing , 341 U.S. 246, 251-52 (1951)).
- See at 317-18.
- See at 317.
- 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e).
- 11 U.S.C. § 556.
- NLRB v. , 465 U.S. 513, 528 (1984).
- District Court's at 316-17.
- See, e.g., , Order on Requests for Rehearing and Clarification, 105 FERC 61,185 (2003); , Order on Rehearing and Clarification, 105 FERC 61,184 (2003).
- See Bankruptcy Court's , 299 B.R. at 158-59 ("Although the court has been cited to no case in which a bankruptcy court has enjoined [FERC] and has found none itself, District Courts have often determined they could provide such injunctive relief.") (citations omitted).
- at 162 (citing , 465 U.S. at 521-22 for proposition that the fact that one party to an agreement was a public utility and was regulated by the state public utility authority did not preclude rejection since Congress did not legislate special treatment for utility contracts rejected under section 365).
- , 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974).
- , 451 U.S. 259, 267 (1981); see also United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 453 (1988).
- , at 104 FERC 61,046 at 61,189 (2003).
Articles found on this page are available to subscribers only. For more information about obtaining a username and password, please call our Customer Service Department at 1-800-368-5001.