[Download] "Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" by Fifth Circuit United States Court Of Appeals # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Author : Fifth Circuit United States Court Of Appeals
- Release Date : January 06, 1979
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 80 KB
Description
In this case Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) petitions for review of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission)1 order granting Transco a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate a major extension of its natural gas transmission network off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. The certificate was subject to the condition that Transco comply with § 2.65(b) of the Commission's General Policy and Interpretations, 15 C.F.R. § 2.65(b), which attempts to insure pipeline utilization of at least 60% Of capacity by denying the company recovery of pipeline costs if the 60% Load factor required by that regulation is not achieved. The legality of the 60% Condition is the major issue presented in this petition, but the Commission also argues that review is premature at this time because Transco has not been ""aggrieved"" within the meaning of the statute which governs judicial review, 15 U.S.C. § 717r(b). The Facts On June 21, 1977, Transco applied for authorization to construct and operate a major extension of one of its natural gas pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico off the Louisiana coast. The estimated cost of the extension was $52,000,000, and the estimated maximum daily capacity of the extension was 240,475 million cubic feet of natural gas. Transco estimated that the load factor utilization for the second year of operation would be 65.45% Of maximum capacity; for the 1978-79 winter season, 80.26%; and for the fifth year of operation, 38%.2 Since there was no opposition to Transco's application, the Commission held an abbreviated hearing, as it was permitted to do in such cases, and issued the certificate that same day. The authorization, however, was ""subject to compliance with . . . (15 C.F.R. § 2.65(b))"", which provides: