WASHINGTON (LN) — The D.C. Circuit dismissed petitions for review filed by Cage Ranch Solar, LLC, ruling the solar developer failed to demonstrate the concrete injury necessary to establish Article III standing against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Cage Ranch, which is developing a 900-megawatt solar generation project in Texas, challenged FERC orders that denied its complaint and its request for a waiver of deadlines to post financial security to Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

The dispute centered on Southwest’s interconnection study process, which requires customers to post financial security equal to 20% of assigned network upgrade costs at a "decision point" to maintain their queue position.

Southwest initially assigned $302 million in upgrade costs to Cage Ranch in February 2022. After Phase 2 results allocated $311 million in costs, Cage Ranch faced a requirement to post approximately $60 million by September 20, 2022.

Rather than post the security, Cage Ranch filed a complaint with FERC in September 2022, arguing Southwest’s cost-allocation model was defective. The commission denied the complaint and the waiver request, confirming the denial on rehearing.

In its petition to the D.C. Circuit, Cage Ranch argued FERC failed to ensure the assigned costs were just and reasonable and acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

The order focused on whether Cage Ranch suffered an injury in fact. The panel noted that Cage Ranch had not shown it incurred any monetary loss, nor did it face imminent costs because it had no active interconnection request before Southwest.

The order stated that the only potentially cognizable injury Cage Ranch could claim was the loss of its position in the queue.

Cage Ranch argued that losing its queue position "effectively kills a project" due to substantial backlogs. It cited Orangeburg v. FERC to claim it was denied the opportunity to connect to the grid on its desired terms.

The D.C. Circuit rejected this argument, stating that Cage Ranch’s briefs provided "virtually no specifics about the claimed harm" and "does not seek to quantify any costs."

The order stated that it was "We are simply left in the dark as to why 'losing a queue position effectively kills [this] project,'" comparing Cage Ranch’s deficiencies to those in Entergy Ark., LLC v. FERC.

The panel also held Cage Ranch’s reliance on Orangeburg unpersuasive, noting that the challenged action did not change the terms on which the product was available. Cage Ranch could have posted security to retain its position or resubmitted its request for a new position.

The court said Cage Ranch pursued neither opportunity, and FERC’s decision denying the complaint and waiver request did not change those opportunities.

The court emphasized that its decision should not be construed as foreclosing future petitioners from establishing injury based on loss of queue position, provided they offer evidence of concrete harm.

The order was issued by a panel consisting of Circuit Judges Katsas and Pan, and Senior Circuit Judge Ginsburg.