U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 15C— ALASKA NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTATION

15 U.S.C. § 719

Congressional findings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
The Congress finds and declares that—(1) a natural gas supply shortage exists in the contiguous States of the United States;(2) large reserves of natural gas in the State of Alaska could help significantly to alleviate this supply shortage;(3) the expeditious construction of a viable natural gas transportation system for delivery of Alaska natural gas to United States markets is in the national interest; and(4) the determinations whether to authorize a transportation system for delivery of Alaska natural gas to the contiguous States and, if so, which system to select, involve questions of the utmost importance respecting national energy policy, international relations, national security, and economic and environmental impact, and therefore should appropriately be addressed by the Congress and the President in addition to those Federal officers and agencies assigned functions under law pertaining to the selection, construction, and initial operation of such a system.(Pub. L. 94–586, § 2, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2903.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesExpiration Date

Pub. L. 94–586, § 20, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2916, provided that: “This Act [this chapter] shall terminate in the event that no decision of the President takes effect under section 8 of this Act [section 719f of this title], such termination to occur at the end of the last day on which a decision could be, but is not, approved under such section.”

Short Title

Pub. L. 94–586, § 1, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2903, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter and provisions set out as notes under this section and section 1651 of Title 43, Public Lands] may be cited as the ‘Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976’.”

Antitrust Study

Pub. L. 94–586, § 19, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2916, directed Attorney General of United States to conduct a thorough study of antitrust issues and problems relating to production and transportation of Alaska natural gas and, not later than six months after Oct. 22, 1976, to complete such study and submit to Congress a report containing his findings and recommendations with respect thereto.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1978–2020 · leading case: Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). · cites it 2× “§633 (b)(1) (Small Business Admin- istration)  15 U. S. C. §719 (Alaska Natural Gas Transpor- tation; Civil Rights)  15 U.”
Younger v. Jensen, 605 P.2d 813 (Cal. 1980). · cites it 12× “§ 719h); and those limits are reinforced by declarations of urgency and of intent to exercise fullest congressional power in limiting administrative and judicial procedures ( 15 U.S.C. §§ 719 -719a). Section 14 of the act ( 15 U.”
Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987). · cites it 2× “" The Secretary suggests that Congress included the parenthetical excluding the OCS out of an abundance of caution because "North Slope" is defined in a related statute — the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976, 15 U. S. C. § 719 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp.”
Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978). · cites it 2× “18 In enacting the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976, 15 U. S. C. § 719 et seq. (1976 ed.) Congress declared: “(1) a natural gas supply shortage exists in the contiguous States of the United States; “(2) large reserves of natural gas in the State of Alaska could help…”
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 501 F.3d 204 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “2903 , 15 U.S.C. § 719 . When, 28 years later, the hoped for pipeline still had not been constructed, the Congress passed the ANG-PA, which is meant to encourage construction by offering certain government loan guarantees.”
DEK Energy Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 248 F.3d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “§ 717f(b), and § 9 of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act, 15 U.S.C. § 719 , seeking approval from the Commission for a restructured arrangement removing Northwest Alaskan and Pacific Interstate Transmission from the process and allowing SoCal to purchase Canadian gas…”
Alaskan Arctic Gas Pipeline Co. v. United States, 9 Cl. Ct. 723 (Ct. Cl. 1986). · cites it 3× “Not all of these applications, however, were fully acted upon, nor accepted by the President, pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act (ANGTA), 15 U.S.C. § 719 , etseq. (1976), as “best serving] the national interest.”
N. Border Pipeline Co. v. 127.79 Acres of Land, 520 F. Supp. 170 (D.N.D. 1981). “In addition, it is important to note that Congress, in enacting the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act (Title 15 U.S.C. § 719 et seq.), has declared that: “(1) A natural gas supply shortage exists in the contiguous states of the United States; (2) Large reserves of natural…”
N. Border Pipeline Co. v. JACKSON CTY., ETC., 512 F. Supp. 1261 (D. Minnesota 1981). “The Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System was established under the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act, 15 U.S.C. § 719 (1976); the system will extend from Prudoe Bay, Alaska, overland into the United States and was designed to deliver the approximately 20 trillion cubic…”
Williams Pipe Line Co. v. City of Mounds View, 651 F. Supp. 551 (D. Minnesota 1987). “” That statute authorizes the Department of Energy to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity and to acquire necessary property and rights-of-way by exercise of the right of eminent domain when holders of such certificates are unable to acquire them by agreement…”
Metzenbaum v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 675 F.2d 1282 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “1204 , which waived certain provisions of federal law, notably certain sections of the Alaskan Natural Gas Transportation Act (“ANGTA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 719 -719o, that would otherwise have governed the construction and operation of the Alaskan natural gas pipeline.”
Earth Resources Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 617 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “We may not strain for a statutory interpretation that will circumvent congressional intent by allowing delay to result from a complaint that goes only to the reasonableness and record support of FERC decisions. In this case complainants have not pointed to any Commission action…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.