15 U.S.C. § 717r

Rehearing and review

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

(a) Application for rehearing; time

Any person, State, municipality, or State commission aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in a proceeding under this chapter to which such person, State, municipality, or State commission is a party may apply for a rehearing within thirty days after the issuance of such order. The application for rehearing shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds upon which such application is based. Upon such application the Commission shall have power to grant or deny rehearing or to abrogate or modify its order without further hearing. Unless the Commission acts upon the application for rehearing within thirty days after it is filed, such application may be deemed to have been denied. No proceeding to review any order of the Commission shall be brought by any person unless such person shall have made application to the Commission for a rehearing thereon. Until the record in a proceeding shall have been filed in a court of appeals, as provided in subsection (b), the Commission may at any time, upon reasonable notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any finding or order made or issued by it under the provisions of this chapter.

(b) Review of Commission order

Any party to a proceeding under this chapter aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in such proceeding may obtain a review of such order in the court of appeals of the United States for any circuit wherein the natural-gas company to which the order relates is located or has its principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in such court, within sixty days after the order of the Commission upon the application for rehearing, a written petition praying that the order of the Commission be modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall forthwith be transmitted by the clerk of the court to any member of the Commission and thereupon the Commission shall file with the court the record upon which the order complained of was entered, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. Upon the filing of such petition such court shall have jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record with it shall be exclusive, to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in part. No objection to the order of the Commission shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Commission in the application for rehearing unless there is reasonable ground for failure so to do. The finding of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. If any party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce such evidence in the proceedings before the Commission, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Commission and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The Commission may modify its findings as to the facts by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and it shall file with the court such modified or new findings, which is supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of the original order. The judgment and decree of the court, affirming, modifying, or setting aside, in whole or in part, any such order of the Commission, shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28.

The filing of an application for rehearing under subsection (a) shall not, unless specifically ordered by the Commission, operate as a stay of the Commission’s order. The commencement of proceedings under subsection (b) of this section shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Commission’s order.

(d) Judicial review(1) In general

The United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which a facility subject to section 717b of this title or section 717f of this title is proposed to be constructed, expanded, or operated shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action for the review of an order or action of a Federal agency (other than the Commission) or State administrative agency acting pursuant to Federal law to issue, condition, or deny any permit, license, concurrence, or approval (hereinafter collectively referred to as “permit”) required under Federal law, other than the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.).

(2) Agency delay

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action for the review of an alleged failure to act by a Federal agency (other than the Commission) or State administrative agency acting pursuant to Federal law to issue, condition, or deny any permit required under Federal law, other than the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), for a facility subject to section 717b of this title or section 717f of this title. The failure of an agency to take action on a permit required under Federal law, other than the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, in accordance with the Commission schedule established pursuant to section 717n(c) of this title shall be considered inconsistent with Federal law for the purposes of paragraph (3).

(3) Court action

If the Court finds that such order or action is inconsistent with the Federal law governing such permit and would prevent the construction, expansion, or operation of the facility subject to section 717b of this title or section 717f of this title, the Court shall remand the proceeding to the agency to take appropriate action consistent with the order of the Court. If the Court remands the order or action to the Federal or State agency, the Court shall set a reasonable schedule and deadline for the agency to act on remand.

(4) Commission action

For any action described in this subsection, the Commission shall file with the Court the consolidated record of such order or action to which the appeal hereunder relates.

(5) Expedited review

The Court shall set any action brought under this subsection for expedited consideration.

(June 21, 1938, ch. 556, § 19, 52 Stat. 831; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 32(a), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 127, 63 Stat. 107; Pub. L. 85–791, § 19, Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 947; Pub. L. 109–58, title III, § 313(b), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 689.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, referred to in subsec. (d)(1), (2), is title III of Pub. L. 89–454, as added by Pub. L. 92–583, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1280, which is classified generally to chapter 33 (§ 1451 et seq.) of Title 16, Conservation. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1451 of Title 16 and Tables.

Codification

In subsec. (b), “section 1254 of title 28” substituted for “sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended [28 U.S.C. 346, 347]” on authority of act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869, the first section of which enacted Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Amendments

2005—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 109–58 added subsec. (d).

1958—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85–791, § 19(a), inserted sentence providing that until record in a proceeding has been filed in a court of appeals, Commission may modify or set aside any finding or order issued by it.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 85–791, § 19(b), in second sentence, substituted “transmitted by the clerk of the court to” for “served upon”, substituted “file with the court” for “certify and file with the court a transcript of”, and inserted “as provided in section 2112 of title 28”, and, in third sentence, substituted “petition” for “transcript”, and “jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record with it shall be exclusive” for “exclusive jurisdiction”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, as amended by act May 24, 1949, substituted “court of appeals” for “circuit court of appeals” wherever appearing.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 749 cases (85 in the last 5 years), 1940–2026 · leading case: Allegheny Def. Proj. v. FERC, 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Allegheny Def. Proj. v. FERC, 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). · cites it 23× “15 U.S.C. § 717r(a)– (b). The proper interpretation of Section 717r(a) is at the heart of this case.”

Total Gas & Power North Am., Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 859 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2017). · cites it 10× “; see 15 U.S.C. § 717r. (13) If rehearing is unavailing, the alleged violator may then appeal to a federal court of appeals, which then reviews FERC’s factual findings for substantial evidence.”

Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 899 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “As Petitioners point out, Congress added 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d) in 2005. Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub.”

Berkshire Env't Action Team, Inc. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 851 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2017). · cites it 7× “” This contrasts with, for example, the text employed in the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 704 (“Agency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review.”

Islander East Pipeline Co., LLC v. State of Connecticut Dep't of Env't Prot., 482 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 8× “We are not entitled to second-guess that decision merely because there is evidence in the record from which different inferences might have been drawn.”

Gunpowder Riverkeeper v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 807 F.3d 267 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 8× “” 15 U.S.C. § 717r(b). A party is “aggrieved” within the meaning of the NGA “if as a result of an order of [the Commission] it has sustained injury in fact to an interest arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated” by the Commission under the NGA.”

Del. Riverkeeper Network v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 903 F.3d 65 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 6× “See 15 U.S.C. § 717r(a) - (b) ; Williams Nat.”

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co LLC v. Pennsylvania Env't Hearing Bd., 108 F.4th 144 (3rd Cir. 2024). · cites it 10× “” 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1). Transco argues that when a PADEP permitting decision involves an interstate natural gas pipeline, the original-and-exclusive-jurisdiction clause preempts the operation of the Pennsylvania statute that allows for administrative appeals to the EHB, see 35…”

Palm Beach Cnty. Env't Coalition v. Florida, 651 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (S.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 22× “Plaintiffs further argue that because they have brought no claims under the Natural Gas Act, the Federal Defendants’ arguments that 15 U.S.C. § 717r, et seq., bars jurisdiction are improper.”

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 6.56 Acres of Land, 915 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “15 U.S.C. § 717r(a). After that, review may be had in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or another federal circuit court with jurisdiction.”

Myersville Citizens for a Rural Cmty., Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 783 F.3d 1301 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 5× “CP12-72, Supplemental Information Filing Replacing Previous filed In Service Notification Request of Dominion Transmission, Inc. under CP 12-72 (filed Nov.”

Columbia Riverkeeper v. United States Coast Guard, 761 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 7× “Rather, any Coast Guard recommendation adopted by FERC in its final order, or any failure to adopt such a recommendation, would be reviewable under 15 U.S.C. § 717r(b). In addition, any final orders regarding vessel traffic issued by the Coast Guard pursuant to its own…”

Show all 749 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 717r(a) — 119 cases

Allegheny Def. Proj. v. FERC, 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “15 U.S.C. § 717r(a)– (b). The proper interpretation of Section 717r(a) is at the heart of this case.”

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. FERC, 67 F.4th 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2023).

Allegheny Def. Proj. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 932 F.3d 940 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

Del. Riverkeeper Network v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 895 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

New York State Dep't of Env't Conservation v. Fed. Energy Regul., 991 F.3d 439 (2d Cir. 2021).

— 15 U.S.C. § 717r(aHb) — 1 case

United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 824 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1987).

— 15 U.S.C. § 717r(b) — 502 cases

Gunpowder Riverkeeper v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 807 F.3d 267 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “” 15 U.S.C. § 717r(b). A party is “aggrieved” within the meaning of the NGA “if as a result of an order of [the Commission] it has sustained injury in fact to an interest arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated” by the Commission under the NGA.”

Total Gas & Power North Am., Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 859 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2017). “; see 15 U.S.C. § 717r. (13) If rehearing is unavailing, the alleged violator may then appeal to a federal court of appeals, which then reviews FERC’s factual findings for substantial evidence.”

Myersville Citizens for a Rural Cmty., Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 783 F.3d 1301 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “CP12-72, Supplemental Information Filing Replacing Previous filed In Service Notification Request of Dominion Transmission, Inc. under CP 12-72 (filed Nov.”

Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 867 F.3d 1357 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors, 603 U.S. 799 (2024).

— 15 U.S.C. § 717r(b)(1970) — 1 case

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, Pub. Serv. Comm'n of the State of New York, Intervenor, 483 F.2d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

— 15 U.S.C. § 717r(c) — 21 cases

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 6.56 Acres of Land, 915 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2019). “15 U.S.C. § 717r(a). After that, review may be had in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or another federal circuit court with jurisdiction.”

Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Permanent Easements for 2.14 Acres & Temp. Easements for 3.59 Acres in Conestoga Twp., 907 F.3d 725 (3rd Cir. 2018).

Allegheny Def. Proj. v. FERC, 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “15 U.S.C. § 717r(a)– (b). The proper interpretation of Section 717r(a) is at the heart of this case.”

Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Union Elec. Co., Intervenors, 881 F.2d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

Tennessee Gas Pipeline v. 104 Acres in Prov. Cty., 749 F. Supp. 427 (D.R.I. 1990).

— 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d) — 7 cases

Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 899 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2018). “As Petitioners point out, Congress added 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d) in 2005. Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub.”

Palm Beach Cnty. Env't Coalition v. Florida, 651 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (S.D. Fla. 2009). “Plaintiffs further argue that because they have brought no claims under the Natural Gas Act, the Federal Defendants’ arguments that 15 U.S.C. § 717r, et seq., bars jurisdiction are improper.”

Del. Riverkeeper Network v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 903 F.3d 65 (3rd Cir. 2018). “See 15 U.S.C. § 717r(a) - (b) ; Williams Nat.”

Islander East Pipeline Co., LLC v. State of Connecticut Dep't of Env't Prot., 482 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2006). “We are not entitled to second-guess that decision merely because there is evidence in the record from which different inferences might have been drawn.”

Islander East Pipeline Co., LLC v. McCarthy, 525 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008).

— 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1) — 67 cases

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co LLC v. Pennsylvania Env't Hearing Bd., 108 F.4th 144 (3rd Cir. 2024). “” 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1). Transco argues that when a PADEP permitting decision involves an interstate natural gas pipeline, the original-and-exclusive-jurisdiction clause preempts the operation of the Pennsylvania statute that allows for administrative appeals to the EHB, see 35…”

Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 899 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2018). “As Petitioners point out, Congress added 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d) in 2005. Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub.”

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC v. Wilson, 589 F.3d 721 (4th Cir. 2009).

Adelphia Gateway LLC v. Pennsylvania Env't Hearing Bd., 62 F.4th 819 (3rd Cir. 2023).

Del. Riverkeeper Network v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 903 F.3d 65 (3rd Cir. 2018). “See 15 U.S.C. § 717r(a) - (b) ; Williams Nat.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(2) — 10 cases

Berkshire Env't Action Team, Inc. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 851 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2017). “” This contrasts with, for example, the text employed in the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 704 (“Agency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review.”

Dominion Transmission, Inc. v. Robert Summers, 723 F.3d 238 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

Constitution Pipeline Co. v. New York State Dep't of Env't Conservation, 868 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2017).

Wendy Wagner v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 717 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

— 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(3) — 10 cases

Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 899 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2018). “As Petitioners point out, Congress added 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d) in 2005. Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub.”

Dominion Transmission, Inc. v. Robert Summers, 723 F.3d 238 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 909 F.3d 635 (4th Cir. 2018).

Del. Riverkeeper Network v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 903 F.3d 65 (3rd Cir. 2018). “See 15 U.S.C. § 717r(a) - (b) ; Williams Nat.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(5) — 3 cases

Town of Weymouth v. MA Dept. of Envir. Prot., 961 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2020).

Town of Weymouth v. MA Dept. of Envir. Prot., 973 F.3d 143 (1st Cir. 2020).

— 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(i) — 1 case

— 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(l) — 9 cases

Columbia Riverkeeper v. United States Coast Guard, 761 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2014). “Rather, any Coast Guard recommendation adopted by FERC in its final order, or any failure to adopt such a recommendation, would be reviewable under 15 U.S.C. § 717r(b). In addition, any final orders regarding vessel traffic issued by the Coast Guard pursuant to its own…”

Constitution Pipeline Co. v. New York State Dep't of Env't Conservation, 868 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2017).

— 15 U.S.C. § 717r(e) — 1 case

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 2 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D. Mass. 1998).

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.