15 U.S.C. § 717d

Fixing rates and charges; determination of cost of production or transportation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Decreases in rates

Whenever the Commission, after a hearing had upon its own motion or upon complaint of any State, municipality, State commission, or gas distributing company, shall find that any rate, charge, or classification demanded, observed, charged, or collected by any natural-gas company in connection with any transportation or sale of natural gas, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or that any rule, regulation, practice, or contract affecting such rate, charge, or classification is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential, the Commission shall determine the just and reasonable rate, charge, classification, rule, regulation, practice, or contract to be thereafter observed and in force, and shall fix the same by order: Provided, however, That the Commission shall have no power to order any increase in any rate contained in the currently effective schedule of such natural gas company on file with the Commission, unless such increase is in accordance with a new schedule filed by such natural gas company; but the Commission may order a decrease where existing rates are unjust, unduly discriminatory, preferential, otherwise unlawful, or are not the lowest reasonable rates.

(b) Costs of production and transportation

The Commission upon its own motion, or upon the request of any State commission, whenever it can do so without prejudice to the efficient and proper conduct of its affairs, may investigate and determine the cost of the production or transportation of natural gas by a natural-gas company in cases where the Commission has no authority to establish a rate governing the transportation or sale of such natural gas.

(June 21, 1938, ch. 556, § 5, 52 Stat. 823.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 267 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1941–2025 · leading case: United Distrib. Companies v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Windward Energy & Mktg. Co., Intervenors, 88 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United Distrib. Companies v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Windward Energy & Mktg. Co., Intervenors, 88 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1996). · cites it 7× “” 15 U.S.C. § 717d. Under the preexisting MFV design, the pipelines incorporated into commodity charges to their sales customers and usage charges to their transportation customers fixed costs that varied greatly from pipeline to pipeline.”

Morgan Stanley Capital Grp. Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty., 554 U.S. 527 (2008). · cites it 2× “747 , 783–784 (1968) (construing identical language in the Natural Gas Act, 15 U. S. C. §717d(a)). The statute does not say anything about a mandatory presumption for contracts, much less define the burden of proof for over- coming it or delineate the circumstances for its…”

Florida Gas Transmission Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 604 F.3d 636 (D.C. Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “FERC ordered a hearing pursuant to NGA section 5, 15 U.S.C. § 717d, which eventually led to the orders challenged here.”

Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, (Three Cases), 613 F.2d 1120 (D.C. Cir. 1979). · cites it 4× “If at any time the Commission suspects that the current rates charged by a pipeline company are above the just and reasonable level, it may order a hearing pursuant to Section 5, 15 U.S.C. § 717d. After the hearing the Commission may determine the just and reasonable rate and…”

Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S. 571 (1981). · cites it 2× “823 , 15 U. S. C. § 717d (a) (emphasis added). See, e.”

Learjet, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc., 715 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2013). “15 U.S.C. § 717d (emphases added). The District Court reasoned that pursuant to Section 5(a) of the NGA, FERC has jurisdiction to regulate any “practice” by a jurisdictional seller that affects a jurisdictional rate.”

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Fed. ENERGY REGULATORY Comm'n, 518 F.3d 916 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “(citing 15 U.S.C. § 717d). Also relevant here, under longstanding FERC policy, "[t]he cost of [new facilities] may be recovered in either of two ways: through `incremental' pricing, which imposes an additional charge payable solely by customers who are directly served by the…”

Pennsylvania Off. of Consum. Advocate v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Carnegie Nat. Gas Co., Intervenors, 131 F.3d 182 (D.C. Cir. 1997). · cites it 5× “Office of Consumer Advocate (“Consumer Advocate”) and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“Public Utility Commission”) (collectively “petitioners”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) erred in approving restructured tariff provisions…”

Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015). “" 15 U.S.C. § 717d(a)(emphasis added). As the italicized words make clear, § 5(a) limits the scope of FERC's authority to activities "in connection with any transportation or sale of natural gas, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission .”

Am. Gas Ass'n v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 593 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 717d(a). The Commission relies on investigations and complaints under section 5 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), id.”

Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 324 U.S. 581 (1945). · cites it 2× “823 , 15 U.S.C. § 717d) finding the interstate wholesale rates of petitioners to be excessive by specified amounts per year and requiring petitioners to reduce the rates accordingly.”

Maine v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 854 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “1990) (emphasis added) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 717d(a)). In other words, a finding that an existing rate is unjust and unreasonable is the “condition precedent” to FERC’s exercise of its section 206 authority to change that rate.”

Show all 267 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 717d(a) — 143 cases

Morgan Stanley Capital Grp. Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty., 554 U.S. 527 (2008). “747 , 783–784 (1968) (construing identical language in the Natural Gas Act, 15 U. S. C. §717d(a)). The statute does not say anything about a mandatory presumption for contracts, much less define the burden of proof for over- coming it or delineate the circumstances for its…”

United Distrib. Companies v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Windward Energy & Mktg. Co., Intervenors, 88 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “” 15 U.S.C. § 717d. Under the preexisting MFV design, the pipelines incorporated into commodity charges to their sales customers and usage charges to their transportation customers fixed costs that varied greatly from pipeline to pipeline.”

Florida Gas Transmission Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 604 F.3d 636 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “FERC ordered a hearing pursuant to NGA section 5, 15 U.S.C. § 717d, which eventually led to the orders challenged here.”

Am. Gas Ass'n v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 593 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “15 U.S.C. § 717d(a). The Commission relies on investigations and complaints under section 5 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), id.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 717d(b) — 3 cases

The Superior Oil Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Mitchell Energy Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 563 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1977).

Union Oil Co. of California v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 542 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1976).

Cont'l Oil Co., the Superior Oil Co., Mitchell Energy Corp., & Mapco Inc. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 519 F.2d 31 (5th Cir. 1975).

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.