for previous year). Connecticut, citing two decisions of the Ninth Circuit, argues that this oversight is inadequate. We disagree. Regular reports based on “transaction-specific data” are precisely what the Ninth Circuit held sufficient to comply with FERC’s oversight obligations. California ex rel. Lockyer v. FERC, 383 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir.2004). By contrast, both we and the Ninth Circuit have held that FERC violates its oversight duty when it imposes no reporting requirements on generators and instead resorts to “largely undocumented reliance on market forces as the principal means of rate regulation.” Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc. v. FERC, 734 F.2d 1486, 1508 (D.C.Cir.1984) (footnote omitted); see also Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. FERC, 471 F.3d 1053, 1082 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2733, 171 L.Ed.2d
holding that ferc could not defer to bilateral energy contract without adopting any monitoring mechanism holding that government approval of a subcontract terms giving subcontractor a right to a direct appeal to the department of energy board of contract appeals among other things manifested intent holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract holding that the plaintiff could bring an action for negligent misrepresentation although the plaintiff could not sue on the contract because the contract was void holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law