C.F.R. » Title 18 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY › SUBCHAPTER P—REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT › PART 342—OIL PIPELINE RATE METHODOLOGIES AND PROCEDURES

18 C.F.R. § 342.2

Establishing initial rates

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

A carrier must justify an initial rate for new service by:

(a) Filing cost, revenue, and throughput data supporting such rate as required by part 346 of this chapter; or

(b) Filing a sworn affidavit that the rate is agreed to by at least one non-affiliated person who intends to use the service in question, provided that if a protest to the initial rate is filed, the carrier must comply with paragraph (a) of this section.

[Order 561, 58 FR 58779, Nov. 4, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 59146, Nov. 16, 1994]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1999–2012 · leading case: Rio Grande Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 178 F.3d 533 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rio Grande Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 178 F.3d 533 (D.C. Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “Under 18 C.F.R. § 342.2 , pipelines may justify an initial rate for new service using one of two methods: the carrier may either (1) file cost, revenue, and throughput data supporting the proposed rate pursuant to § 342.”
Frontier Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 452 F.3d 774 (D.C. Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “18 C.F.R. § 342.2 ; Order No. 561, FERC Stats.”
Idaho Power Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 312 F.3d 454 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “1999), petitioner Rio Grande Pipeline Company could either justify the rates for its service through 18 C.F.R. § 342.2 (a), in which it was required to “file cost, revenue and throughput data supporting the proposed rate,” or through § 342.”
PG&E Gas Transmission v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 315 F.3d 383 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “In Rio Grande, a pipeline company sought approval of its rates under 18 C.F.R. § 342.2 (a) and submitted evidence of reasonableness of the rates.”
Markwest Michigan Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 646 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “§ 7172 note); (2) the pipeline has filed evidence of the actual costs of operation to support the rate, see 18 C.F.R. § 342.2 (a); or (3) one shipper has agreed in writing to pay the rate and no other shipper has protested, see id.”
Mobil Pipe Line Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 676 F.3d 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “18 C.F.R. § 342.2 ; see also 58 Fed. Reg.”
ID Power Co v. FERC, 312 F.3d 454 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “1999), petitioner Rio Grande Pipeline Company could either justify the rates for its service through 18 C.F.R. § 342.2 (a), in which it was required to ‘‘file cost, revenue and throughput data supporting the proposed rate,’’ or through § 342.”
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.