Ferc

MEMORANDUM

Thomas Andersen petitions pro se for review of a decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) denying his request for rehearing. We deny the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.

I

We will not disturb a FERC decision unless it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or not in accordance with law.” The Steamboaters v. FERC, 759 F.2d 1382, 1388 (9th Cir.1985). “In determining whether an agency’s action is arbitrary or capricious, we must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 329 F.3d 1089 , 1097 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will uphold FERC’s factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. 16 U.S.C. § 825Z(b).

II

FERC has broad discretion to determine how it will respond to complaints. See Pac. Gas and Elec. Co. v. FERC, 746 F.2d 1383, 1386 (9th Cir.1984) (“We must allow the FERC wide discretion in selecting its own procedures, and must defer to the…