Opinion
No. 09-1051.
Filed On: June 8, 2009.
Consolidated with 09-1052, 09-1054, 09-1055.
BEFORE: Rogers, Garland, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motions to dismiss, the response thereto, and the replies, it is
ORDERED that the motions to dismiss be granted. Petitioners concede that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the order approving the settlement agreement between Edison Mission Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985);Baltimore Gas Electric Co. v. FERC, 252 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2001); New York State Dept. of Law v. FCC, 984 F.2d 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Moreover, Petitioners have failed to show they have a right to intervene in the agency's investigation. See 18 C.F.R. § 1b.11 ("There are no parties, as that term is used in adjudicative proceedings, in an investigation under this part and no person may intervene or participate as a matter of right in any investigation under this part."). Thus, the agency's denial of their motions to intervene is not judicially reviewable. See Action on Safety Health v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 498 F.2d 757, 762-63 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (holding that the decision to grant or deny intervention in agency enforcement proceedings "is an agency action committed to agency discretion and therefore is specifically exempt from judicial review. . . .").
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.