Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. FERC: Date Argued: February 12th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-1007

Case Summary:Gemini saidIn the case of Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. FERC (Docket No. 25-1007), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on February 12, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows:The litigation centers on a dispute between Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding the management of power grid congestion at the "Charlie Creek to Watford City" flowgate (Flowgate 5717) located in North Dakota.The factual conflict began in April 2023 when the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) initiated "Market-to-Market" (M2M) coordination with the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) to manage congestion on this specific transmission line.MDU, which operates generation facilities in the region, filed a formal complaint alleging that this coordination was unauthorized because the congestion was a "wholly local" constraint that did not meet the necessary regional impact criteria defined in the Joint Operating Agreement between MISO and SPP.The utility company contended that the M2M coordination resulted in "duplicative" and "unwarranted" payments that were ultimately passed down to its customers without providing a corresponding regional benefit.FERC issued a series of orders in 2024 and 2025 (188 FERC ¶ 61,168 and 190 FERC ¶ 61,162) denying MDU's complaint and subsequent requests for rehearing, finding that the coordination was consistent with established technical protocols and "shift factor" sensitivity studies.MDU's appeal, docketed as 25-1007, challenges the agency’s reliance on these technical studies, arguing that the Commission failed to address MDU’s evidence that no MISO-side generation was actually available to relieve the local constraint.The central factual question before the court is whether the administrative record supports FERC's conclusion that the congestion on Flowgate 5717 possessed a "significant" enough impact on the adjacent market to justify the inter-regional coordination charges.During the oral arguments on February 12, 2026, the Eighth Circuit panel examined whether FERC's refusal to order refunds for the contested payments was based on a "reasonable explanation" or if the agency ignored material evidence regarding the local nature of the grid constraint.