Natural Gas Policy Act Of 1978

133 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Associated GAS Distribs. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  824 F.2d 981· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-23 ·cited 148×
  The court's majority opinion affirmed the Commission's statutory authority and disposition of rate provisions, but remanded on contract demand provisions. The concurring judge dissents on the optional expedited certificates.
• Pennzoil Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  645 F.2d 360· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-20 ·cited 113×
  The court held that the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) does not preclude area rate clauses in existing interstate gas purchase contracts from escalating the contract price to the maximum lawful NGPA price, and that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has the au
• Nat'l Fuel GAS Supply Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  811 F.2d 1563· D.C. Cir.· 1987-02-20 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission correctly denied National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation's request for a retroactive rate increase for natural gas sold between December 1, 1978, and June 1, 1982. The denial was based on the finality of rates set in adjud
• Consumer Energy Council OF Am. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  673 F.2d 425· D.C. Cir.· 1982-01-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the one-house legislative veto provision in section 202(c) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 is unconstitutional.
• Maryland People's Counsel v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  761 F.2d 768· D.C. Cir.· 1985-05-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) failed to provide a reasonable basis for its limitation on eligible purchasers of released natural gas under a special marketing program (SMP), specifically excluding captive customers.
• Wis. GAS Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  770 F.2d 1144· D.C. Cir.· 1985-08-20 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the Commission's orders eliminating variable cost recovery through minimum bills, finding it was reasoned decisionmaking and did not violate settlement agreements or import authorizations. However, it remanded the issue of whether downstream pipelines can inclu
• Ecee, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  611 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-07 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA) imposes a rehearing requirement as a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review of rules issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
• Asarco, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  777 F.2d 764· D.C. Cir.· 1985-11-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that petitions seeking review of an order accepting tariff filings for consideration, without ruling on the merits of objections, are not reviewable. It also held that a party cannot raise objections on appeal that were not raised in its own petition for rehearing
• Pennzoil Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  789 F.2d 1128· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-14 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) fundamentally misconstrued this Court's prior decision in Pennzoil by misapplying the Order 23 presumption and failing to properly construe contract language under state law.
• Ecee, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  645 F.2d 339· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-20 ·cited 31×
  The court held that FERC has the authority to prescribe evidence requirements for well determination applications, to toll the review period for incomplete filings, and to allow protestors to submit evidence. The court also found that the procedural timing for producer responses
• Pennzoil Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  645 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Commission's Opinion No. 77 and subsequent order are not ripe for judicial review because they are interlocutory, lack direct impact, and are not final agency actions.
• Columbia GAS Dev. Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  651 F.2d 1146· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) does not repeal the waiver condition in optional procedure certificates issued under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), nor does it repeal the NGA § 4 rate increase filing requirement for gas still subject to NGA jurisdiction.
• Am. Petroleum Inst. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  661 F.2d 340· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while EPA must provide a means for upset and bypass relief, these provisions do not need to be explicitly included in the Guidelines themselves, but can be handled through NPDES permits.
• Am. GAS Ass'n v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  888 F.2d 136· D.C. Cir.· 1989-10-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's interim rule (Order No. 500) did not comply with the prior mandate in Associated Gas Distributors v. FERC, failing to provide reasoned decisionmaking regarding take-or-pay issues and § 5 inaction.
• Kan. Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  851 F.2d 1479· D.C. Cir.· 1988-07-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) acted reasonably in granting limited-term abandonment (LTA) authorizations without pre-authorization evidentiary hearings, and that these actions were consistent with the agency's evolving abandonment policies.
• Ky. W. Va. GAS Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
  791 F.2d 1111· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining under Burford and Younger doctrines because the plaintiffs' preemption claims presented federal questions inappropriate for abstention and the procedural posture did not warrant Younger abstention.
• Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  881 F.2d 1101· D.C. Cir.· 1989-08-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that FERC failed to adequately explain the fairness of releasing customers from the 'sole supplier' obligation while allowing them to retain G schedule benefits, requiring remand. However, the court upheld FERC's authority to mandate the Modified Fixed and Variable
• The Process GAS Consumers Grp. v. U.S. Dep't OF Agric.
  694 F.2d 778· D.C. Cir.· 1982-10-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has the authority under the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA) to assess the practicability of integrating agricultural load growth into curtailment plans, especially concerning its impact on high-priority users.
• Columbia GAS Transmission Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  831 F.2d 1135· D.C. Cir.· 1987-10-27 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exceeded its authority by permitting pipelines to recover deferred production-associated costs from customers through direct billing surcharges, as this constituted prohibited retroactive ratemaking under the Natural Ga
• Amoco Prod. Co. v. W. Slope GAS Co.
  754 F.2d 303· 10th Cir.· 1985-02-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not err in considering extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent regarding the gas contract's price escalation clause, and that the evidence supported the finding that the parties intended to tie the price to interstate gas cei
• Mid-Louisiana GAS Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  664 F.2d 530· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) intended for pipeline-produced natural gas to be eligible for NGPA first sale prices, and that the intracorporate transfer of such gas should be treated as the first sale.
• Maryland People's Counsel v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  761 F.2d 780· D.C. Cir.· 1985-05-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that FERC failed to adequately consider the anticompetitive consequences of its blanket certificate orders, which allowed pipelines to transport direct-sale gas to fuel-switchable end users without offering the same service to captive consumers.
• Superior OIL Co. v. Pioneer Corp.
  706 F.2d 603· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claim, stripped to its essentials, sought enforcement of state-created contract rights, not a federal right, even though federal law was relevant to the pricing dispute.
• United GAS Pipe Line Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  707 F.2d 1507· D.C. Cir.· 1983-05-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Commission failed to provide meaningful consideration for the waiver request and improperly delayed deliberations without statutory protection.
• Bowers v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  692 F.2d 1015· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 18×
  Under Texas law, the market value of natural gas for royalty purposes, when subject to federal price regulation, cannot exceed the maximum lawful ceiling price for its specific regulatory category.
• Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. The United States
  923 F.2d 830· Fed. Cir.· 1991-01-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the two-year limitation for refund requests under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act begins to run from the date of the original royalty payment, not from the date of a subsequent judicial determination that the payment was excessive.
• Tex. E. Transmission Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  769 F.2d 1053· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's handling of most issues regarding production-related cost allowances under the Natural Gas Policy Act, finding its regulations and orders to be reasonable accommodations of varying policies and statutory requirements.
• Hoover & Bracken Energies, Inc. v. United States Dep't OF the Interior
  723 F.2d 1488· 10th Cir.· 1983-12-28 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the Department of Interior's practices contradict the Natural Gas Policy Act, and the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.
• Shell OIL Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  707 F.2d 230· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Commission's rule denying new vintage pricing for sidetracked wells within existing proration units, established in Mullins & Prichard, was invalid because it lacked substantial evidentiary support for its underlying factual assumption.
• Clem G. Flowers v. Diamond Shamrock Corp.
  693 F.2d 1146· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that endorsing royalty checks without knowledge of a dispute does not constitute accord and satisfaction, and that federal price regulations limit the market value of gas for royalty purposes.
• Conoco, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  622 F.2d 796· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the definition of 'committed or dedicated to interstate commerce' in the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, which includes all natural gas from the Outer Continental Shelf, applies to determine exemptions from the Natural Gas Act of 1938, even for gas not yet flo
• Associated GAS Distribs. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  D.D.C.· 1989-12-28 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the Commission's purchase deficiency allocation mechanism for take-or-pay costs violates the filed rate doctrine because it effectively changes rates retroactively without proper notice. The court also upheld the Commission's position that certain take-or-pay
• Mich. Consol. GAS Co. v. Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co.
  887 F.2d 1295· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the bypass of a local distribution company for direct interstate transportation of natural gas is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC and is therefore preempted by federal law, precluding state regulation.
• Wagner & Brown v. ANR Pipeline Co.
  837 F.2d 199· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deferring to FERC's primary jurisdiction but directed the dismissal be modified to a stay.
• Consol. Edison Co. OF NEW York, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  823 F.2d 630· D.C. Cir.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the FERC can change its abandonment policy, its new policy was based on an erroneous factual premise regarding the alleviation of take-or-pay contracts and market-wide benefits, thus requiring reversal.
• Interstate Natural GAS Ass'n OF Am. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  716 F.2d 1· D.C. Cir.· 1983-08-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) new rule for measuring the energy content of natural gas violates the Natural Gas Policy Act's (NGPA) statutory pricing scheme.
• Pub. Utils. Comm'n OF the State OF Cal. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  894 F.2d 1372· D.C. Cir.· 1990-02-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that FERC's decision to require repayment of the time value of El Paso's tax reserves was a reasonable compromise, and the majority's reversal was unwarranted.
• Williams Natural GAS Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  872 F.2d 438· D.C. Cir.· 1989-04-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that FERC's termination of the rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to justify its decision, particularly in light of its own tentative conclusion that the incentive price was contrary to the public interest and potentially violated the
• NEW Jersey Zinc Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  843 F.2d 1497· D.C. Cir.· 1988-04-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that FERC's one-year limitation policy for certificates was generally permissible but required adequate explanation, and that objections not properly raised in rehearing applications were barred.
• The Process GAS Consumers Grp. v. U. S. Dep't OF Agric.
  694 F.2d 728· D.C. Cir.· 1981-07-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the rule must be remanded because it reverses the statutory scheme by favoring new users in a lower priority classification over new users in the highest priority classification.
• Falcon Petroleum v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  642 F.2d 780· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission correctly applied its regulations and the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 to set the price of natural gas based on the initial drilling date, not subsequent deeper drilling into an already penetrated formation.
• Midwest GAS Users Ass'n v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  833 F.2d 341· D.C. Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 11×
  The court held that FERC's interpretation of the negotiated contract price requirement, specifically its arm's-length bargaining test, was inadequate to ensure prices reflected market forces, and remanded for reformulation.
• MID La. GAS Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  780 F.2d 1238· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the 1981 settlement agreement did not preclude Mid Louisiana from recovering NGPA prices for its company-owned production, as the settlement did not expressly address or waive this right.
• Columbia GAS Transmission Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  895 F.2d 791· D.C. Cir.· 1990-02-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) lacks the statutory authority under section 4(d) of the Natural Gas Act to waive the filed rate doctrine and impose retroactive rate surcharges when adequate notice has not been provided to downstream purchasers.
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  886 F.2d 1023· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that FERC's approval of Northern Natural Gas's settlement rates for transportation services under Order No. 436 was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by reasoned consideration, thus affirming FERC's decision.
• Hunt OIL Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  853 F.2d 1226· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 10×
  The presiding AU did not err by giving less evidentiary weight to extrinsic evidence of intent than to contract language, as the AU permissibly determined the extrinsic evidence was unreliable.
• Isla Petroleum Corp. v. Puerto RICO Dep't OF Consumer Affairs
  811 F.2d 1511· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1986-12-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal law, specifically the Congressional intent to allow market forces to govern petroleum prices, preempts Puerto Rico's Department of Consumer Affairs (DACO) from implementing or enforcing orders fixing prices or profit margins in the gasoline business.
• City OF Farmington v. Amoco GAS Co.
  777 F.2d 554· 10th Cir.· 1985-11-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's interpretation of the contract's indefinite price escalator clause, in light of regulatory changes, was not clearly erroneous, and its award of prejudgment interest was not an abuse of discretion.
• Laclede GAS Co. & United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  722 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that FERC's order allowing United Gas Pipe Line Company to "roll-in" the cost of natural gas purchased under NGPA Sections 311 and 312 was not unduly discriminatory and did not violate established Commission precedent.
• Consol. Edison Co. OF NEW York, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  676 F.2d 763· D.C. Cir.· 1982-04-20 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed FERC's approval of an end-use curtailment plan that did not require compensation for customers experiencing below-average curtailment, finding it was not arbitrary or capricious and did not violate the Natural Gas Act.