SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted United's motion to stay the issuance of the mandate, allowing the previously court-ordered curtailment plan to remain in effect.
United Gas Pipe Line Company sought to stay the issuance of a mandate from a prior appellate decision, fearing disruption of its delivery priorities. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Curtailment Plans cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In Southern Natural Gas Co. v. FPC, 543 F. 2d 530 (5th Cir. 1976), this Court ordered into effect a modified four-priority curtailment plan for United Gas Pipe Line Company. The Court’s subsequent decision in Southern Natural Gas Co. v. FPC, 547 F. 2d 826 (5th Cir. 1977), inter alia, approved the Commission’s acceptance of another plan proposed by United which was to supersede the court-ordered plan. United has now moved to stay issuance of the mandate in the latter decision. United’s premise is that the Commission contemplates completion of yet a third plan, this one a permanent plan under Section 5 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 717d (1970), and United would prefer to continue with the court-ordered plan without fear of having to switch its delivery priorities twice during the current winter heating season. The Commission, as do almost all of the other respondents, generally supports United’s motion.
Agreeing with the need to avoid disruption of deliveries, we order that the court-ordered plan of November 13, 1976, continue in effect. We defer issuance of the mandate from our February 1, 1977 decision until the Commission has issued its final order in Phase II of the Section 5 proceedings and the resulting plan goes into effect. We reject United’s suggestion that this Court should now make provision for a “transition period” to follow the Commission’s order. Motions to stay pending review may be made when they become timely. See 15 U.S.C. Section 717r(c) (1970).
By granting the motion to defer, the Court does not intend in any way to relieve the Commission of its immediate and continuing responsibility to resolve the Phase II proceedings and produce a just and reasonable curtailment plan in this case. If it should appear that the Commission’s Phase II plan, when adopted, will not take effect before the 1978-79 winter heating season, parties may make such motions with respect to issuance of the February 1, 1977 mandate as they deem appropriate. The Court defers all motions for clarification or rehearing of the February 1 decision until such time as a ruling on them appears to be required.
MOTION GRANTED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Natural GAS Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 714 F.2d 424 (5th Cir. 1983)
Authorities Cited
- S. Natural GAS Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 547 F.2d 826 (5th Cir. 1977)
- S. Natural GAS Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 543 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1976)