From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Process Gas Consumers Group v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
158 F.3d 591 (1998)
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the commission) (defendant) issued Order No. 636, which required natural-gas-pipeline companies to unbundle sales of pipeline capacity for delivery of natural gas from sales of the natural gas. The order required natural-gas-pipeline companies to make regulatory filings for compliance (tariff filings). The commission then determined the adequacy of the companies’ energy-load-management plans. In 1992, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (Tetco) made one such tariff filing. Tetco’s tariff filing provided two exceptions to pro rata capacity curtailment (i.e., proportional reductions in use of the pipeline) for Tetco’s customers. First, customers with high-priority end uses would be protected from pro rata capacity curtailment. Second, emergency situations in which natural gas was required to avoid irreparable injury to life or property could be excepted from curtailment. NUI Corporation, Elizabeth Gas Division (NUI) (plaintiff) commented on Tetco’s tariff filing. The commission rejected the first exception. The commission allowed the second exception to stand with a revision. The final tariff filing also called for compensation to be paid by customers who were exempt from curtailment to customers who were deprived beyond their proportional share of capacity. However, the amount to be paid in compensation was calculated using a formula that did not fully account for lost profits or expenses from the curtailment. NUI petitioned the commission for review of its order, suggesting that compensation be either set at the amount of actual damages or calculated as a percentage above the current market price of natural gas. The commission rejected both suggestions. It found that the existing compensation scheme was an adequate remedy and that no party had offered a plausible compensation scheme that was able to be monitored adequately by the commission. However, the commission did not explain why either of NUI’s proposals were inappropriate or deficient. NUI appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.