18 C.F.R. § 2.69
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1990–2000 · leading case: Martin v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 199 F.3d 1370 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
Martin v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 199 F.3d 1370 (D.C. Cir. 2000). “The Commission rejected the alternative route because it would have required Portland to develop a new right-of-way, in contravention of 18 C.F.R. § 2.69 (a)(1)(f), which states that “[i]n locating proposed facilities, consideration should be given to the utilization,…”
Nat'l Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 894 F.2d 571 (2d Cir. 1990). “An applicant must also provide a statement that it has followed the guidelines for planning, locating, constructing and maintaining facilities set out in 18 C.F.R. § 2.69 , in order that “[i]n the interest of preserving scenic, historic, wildlife and recreational values, the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.