the planning mandate relates wholly to electricity transmission, as opposed to electricity sales, it involves a subject matter over which the Commission has relatively broader authority. Second, because the orders’ planning mandate is directed at ensuring the proper functioning of the interconnected grid spanning state lines, cf. Duke Power Co. v. FPC, 401 F.2d 930, 935 (D.C.Cir.1968) (explaining that the “major emphasis” of the FPA “is upon federal regulation of those aspects of the industry which — for reasons either legal or practical — are beyond the pale of effective state supervision”), the mandate fits comfortably within Section 201(b)’s grant of jurisdiction over “the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce.” Cf. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. at 15, 122 S.Ct. 1012 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n of Cal.,
holding that section 502 is an exclusive grant of jurisdiction holding that section 4a12 is a broadly applicable section of the guidelines recognizing the oeas power to grant relief very broadly including the power to order reinstatement and back pay recognizing that the court has construed broadly the grant of jurisdiction in section 201 recognizing that the court has the power to grant leave upon certain conditions