WILLIAMS PIPE LINE CO. ET AL.

v.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 734 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
  …ormula used in the past in oil pipeline ratemaking, even though this formula had met with severe criticism from this court in Farmers Union Central Exchange v. FERC, 584 F. 2d 408 (D.C.Cir.1978), cert. denied sub nom. Williams Pipe Line Co. v. FERC, 439 U.S. 995, 99 S.Ct. 596, 58 L.Ed.2d 669 (1978). At the same time, the Commission revised its rate of return methodology so that the resulting rate levels would represent ceilings seldom reached in actual practice. For the reasons set forth below, we find tha…
• Harborlite Corp. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States, 613 F.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
  …ect on that competitive situation caused by the disparity, will suffice” to establish the element of injury. Farmers Union Cent. Exch. v. FERC, 189 U.S. App.D.C. 250, 264 n.36, 584 F. 2d 408, 422 n.36 (D.C.Cir.) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 995, 99 S.Ct. 596, 58 L.Ed.2d 669 (1978). . For example, the railroads charged $31.13 to ship a ton of crude perlite with a preshipment price of $11.50 from Superior to Vicksburg, Michigan. J.A. at 26 (statement of William G. Blunt). . The dissenting…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Natural GAS Pipeline Co. OF Am. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 765 F.2d 1155 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
  …Pipeline Co., 315 U.S. 575, 585-86, 62 S.Ct. 736, 742-43, 86 L.Ed. 1037 (1942); id. at 601-07, 62 S.Ct. at 750-53 (Black, Douglas, and Murphy, JX, concurring); Farmers Union Cent. Exch. v. FERC, 584 F. 2d 408, 413-14 & n. 8 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 995, 99 S.Ct. 596, 58 L.Ed.2d 669 (1978). . However, as we note below, Natural did not seek to include all its expenses from the three projects at issue in the disputed costs. See infra at 1158-1159. . Charges initially borne by the shareholders of a…