18 C.F.R. § 284.9

Interruptible transportation service

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Interruptible transportation availability. (1) An interstate pipeline that provides firm transportation service under subpart B or G of this part must also offer transportation service on an interruptible basis under that subpart or subparts and separately from any sales service.

(2) An intrastate pipeline that provides transportation service under Subpart C may offer such transportation service on an interruptible basis.

(3) Service on an interruptible basis means that the capacity used to provide the service is subject to a prior claim by another customer or another class of service and receives a lower priority than such other classes of service.

(b) The provisions regarding non-discriminatory access, reasonable operational conditions, and limitations contained in § 284.7 (b), (c), and (f) apply to pipelines providing interruptible service under this section.

(c) Reservation fee. No reservation fee may be imposed for interruptible service. A pipeline's rate for any transportation service provided under this section may not include any minimum bill provision, minimum take provision, or any other provision that has the effect of guaranteeing revenue.

[Order 436, 50 FR 42494, Oct. 18, 1985] Editorial Note:For Federal Register citations affecting § 284.9, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at www.govinfo.gov.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1988–2010 · leading case: PG&E Gas Transmission, Nw. Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 315 F.3d 383 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

PG&E Gas Transmission, Nw. Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 315 F.3d 383 (D.C. Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “18 C.F.R. § 284.9 (b) (2002) (banning undue discrimination in the allocation of IT capacity by reference to 18 C.”

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 430 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “18 C.F.R. § 284.9 . Most pipeline companies responded to Order No.”

Exxon Corp.,petitioners v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc., Intervenors, 206 F.3d 47 (D.C. Cir. 2000). “18 CFR § 284.9 (a)(1). Back at the time of the settlement, Transco’s customers made a choice between firm and interruptible service; they specifically asked FERC- to guarantee them firm rights on the IT-feeders, and FERC did so.”

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 886 F.2d 1023 (8th Cir. 1989). “The FERC Brief defines 100% Load Factor Rate as the rate equal to "the total per-unit charges that would be paid for firm transportation if the firm shipper consistently transported 100% of the amount of the capacity that it reserved.”

Mustang Energy Corp., Formerly Known as Mustang Fuel v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, El Paso Nat. Gas Co., Intervenor, 859 F.2d 1447 (10th Cir. 1988). “See 18 C.F.R. § 284.9 (d) (1988) ("A pipeline’s rate for any transportation service provided under this section may not include any minimum bill provision, minimum take provision, or any other provision that has the effect of guaranteeing revenue.”

Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 890 F.2d 1121 (10th Cir. 1989). “” 18 C.F.R. § 284.9 (a)(3) (1989). . This rate derived from schedules CIG filed with FERC under section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act, 15 U.”

Apache Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 627 F.3d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “See 18 C.F.R. § 284.9 . Midcontinent is an interstate natural gas pipeline that recently constructed a line extending from Bennington, Oklahoma, to Butler, Alabama.”

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.