Circuit

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last week remanded orders in aPanhandle Eastern Pipe Line case that it says marked a cleardeparture from FERC’s established policy on pipeline interconnectswithout providing any justification for the action.

Amoco Production and Amoco Energy Trading have wasted no time inpetitioning the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review FERC’srecent decision upholding Dynegy Marketing and Trade’s 1.3 Bcf/dcontract with El Paso Natural Gas.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded Friday a FERCdecision approving a 20-year cap on bids for Tennessee Gas Pipelinecapacity that are considered under the net-present-value approach.The Process Gas Consumers Group (PGC), which includes industrialgas users, challenged the Commission order, arguing that it failedto engage in “reasoned decision-making” by allowing the cap on theNPV bids. “…..[W]e find FERC’s reasoning on the cap to beunpersuasive and largely conclusory,” the court opined [No.98-1075]. The court said it didn’t “quarrel” with the goal behindthe Commission’s approval of the NPV capacity-allocation method forTennessee, “but [we] remind FERC of its admitted need to balancethe goal with its duty to prevent exploitation of Tennessee’smonopoly power. FERC appears to have forgotten the latter…..” PGCalso took issue with FERC’s decision allowing Tennessee to applyNPV to shippers attempting to change primary receipt and deliverypoints, and the court agreed with industrials on this point. Thecourt ordered the Commission to “better explain or modify” itsapproval of both issues.

A D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling last July, which heldFERC improperly denied Iroquois Gas Transmission the recovery oflegal costs associated with investigations into the illegalconstruction activities of the pipeline, leaves the Commission withonly one course of action on remand, Iroquois said last week. Thatis to uphold the presiding FERC judge’s initial finding that -violations aside – the pipeline’s legal costs were prudentlyincurred and, therefore, recoverable.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has remanded an orderapproving the El Paso Natural Gas rate settlement for furtherreview, citing as its reason FERC’s refusal to give SouthernCalifornia Edison (Edison) the opportunity to challenge theagreement based on its status as an indirect customer of thepipeline.

Ruling that the case was not ripe for review yet, the D.C.Circuit Court of Appeals has denied challenges to FERC’s policystatement and subsequent orders that gave interstate gas pipelinespermission to enter into negotiated rates with their customers.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded an order in whichFERC denied Iroquois Gas Transmission System L.P the recovery oflegal costs stemming from the criminal and civil investigationsinto environmental violations associated with the construction ofpipeline facilities in the early 1990s.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld two orders inwhich FERC denied a small-customer discount transportation rate toNephi, UT, a municipal distribution customer on Questar Pipeline.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Tuesday remanded tothe FERC the Commission’s ruling that interstate pipelines must getprior approval before leasing capacity on other pipelines. Thedecision came at the behest of Coastal affiliates ColoradoInterstate Gas and ANR Pipeline in their petition for rehearing ofa 1996 ruling from a Texas Eastern Transmission case. The Coastalaffiliates maintain the preclearance requirement burdens them witha competitive disadvantage.