providing the initial remedy owed to its customers following our decisions in PGE and Golden Northwest and replaced it with a new remedy for the same conduct. Such action falls squarely within the traditional scope of agency authority to fashion remedies. See United Gas Improvements Co. v. Cattery Props., Inc., 382 U.S. 233, 229 (1965) (upholding the Federal Power Commission’s decision to order refunds because “an agency, like a court, can undo what is wrongfully done by virtue of its order”); Pub. Utils. Comm’n of Cal. v. FERC, 462 F.3d 1027, 1053 (9th Cir.2006) (“An agency’s discretion is at its zenith when it is fashioning policies, remedies and sanctions.... ” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)); Pub. Utils. Comm’n of Cal. v. FERC, 988 F.2d 154, 162-63 (D.C.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). This is not a case in which WPAG is entitled
holding that the fourth circuit has jurisdiction to review a district courts sua sponte remand order even when that remand order is styled as a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the order was in fact based on the procedural insufficiency of the notice of removal holding that a remand need not be ordered despite legal errors if remand would be futile holding that general losses must be sufficiently disaggregated from losses caused by the initial abuser when determining those losses caused by the continuing traffic of the images holding that on remand ferc had the authority to order  recoupment of losses caused by its errors holding that a remand order entered by a magistrate judge was beyond his statutory authority and concluding that review was proper because the court of appeals was not reviewing the merits of the remand order itself