COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORP. v. F.E.R.C.

Nos. 85-1846, 85-1847, 86-1021, 86-1074, 86-1082, 86-1164 and 86-1187.

831 F.2d 1135 (1987)

COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Philadelphia Gas Works, Philadelphia Electric Company, Bay State Gas Company, et al., Intervenors.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Decided October 27, 1987.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Richard L. Gottlieb, Charleston, W.Va., for petitioner Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. in Nos. 85-1846, 85-1847, 86-1074, 86-1082 and 86-1164. Steve H. Finch, G.D.H. Snyder, and S.J. Small, Charleston, W.Va., entered appearances for Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.

Philip B. Malter, with whom Charles F. Wheatley, Jr., Annapolis, Md., and Paul M. Flynn, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for petitioner Mun. Defense Group in No. 86-1187.

Michael J. Fremuth, with whom Thomas F. Ryan, Jr., and Robert G. Hardy, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., petitioner in No. 86-1021 and intervenor in No. 85-1847; and on the joint brief for intervenor pipelines, with Bolivar C. Andrews, Carl W. Ulrich, Judy M. Johnson, and J. Stephen Martin, Houston, Tex., for intervenor Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.; William Douglas Field, Jr., Owensboro, Ky., and Michael R. Waller, Houston, Tex., for intervenor Texas Gas Transmission Corp.; Raymond N. Shibley, Lawrence G. Acker, and Patrick J. Whittle, Washington, D.C., for intervenors Trunkline Gas Co. and Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. Thomas R. Sheets, Houston, Tex., also entered an appearance for intervenor Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.

John H. Conway, Atty., F.E.R.C., for respondent. Barbara J. Weller, Sol., and A. Karen Hill, F.E.R.C., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for respondent.

Glenn W. Letham and Joshua L. Menter, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for intervenor Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. in No. 86-1074.

John Sandor, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for amicus curiae The Nat. Ass'n of Consumer Owned Gas Systems, urging reversal.

Frank P. Saponaro, Jr. and Jennifer K. Walter, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor Philadelphia Gas Works.

James R. Lacey, Newark, N.J., entered an appearance for intervenor Public Service Elec. and Gas Co.

Robert A. MacDonnell, Philadelphia, Pa., entered an appearance for intervenor Philadelphia Elec. Co.

John S. Schmid, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for intervenors Bay State Gas Co., et al.

John E. Holtzinger, Jr., John T. Stough, Jr., and Jacolyn A. Simmons, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor Atlanta Gas Light Co.

Stanley M. Morley, Joel F. Zipp, and Paul W. Diehl, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor South Carolina Pipeline Corp.

Nusha Wyner, Newark, N.J., Stanley W. Balis, and Susan N. Kelly, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor Public Advocate of New Jersey.

Frank H. Strickler and Gordon M. Grant, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor Washington Gas Light Co.

David E. Blabey, Albany, N.Y., Richard A. Solomon, and David D'Alessandro, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor Public Service Com'n of the State of N.Y.

Jerry W. Amos, Greensboro, N.C., entered an appearance for intervenor Piedmont Natural Gas Co., Inc.

William W. Ross and Daniel L. Koffsky, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor Consumers Power Co.

James H. Holt and Jeffrey M. Petrash, Detroit, Mich., entered appearances for intervenor Michigan Consol. Gas Co.

John R. Schaefgan, Jr. and Richard M. Merriman, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenors General Customer Service Group, et al.

Before BUCKLEY and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and GERHARD A. GESELL, U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia.


Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge BUCKLEY.

BUCKLEY, Circuit Judge:

Petitioners challenge Federal Energy Regulatory Commission orders permitting five pipelines to recover a surcharge from their customers on gas already sold to them. The amount of the surcharge would, in effect, reimburse the pipelines for the amounts that the pipelines had subsequently been required to pay to producers for certain deferred production-associated costs. The principal...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases