42 U.S.C. § 7111

Congressional findings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Congress of the United States finds that—(1) the United States faces an increasing shortage of nonrenewable energy resources;(2) this energy shortage and our increasing dependence on foreign energy supplies present a serious threat to the national security of the United States and to the health, safety and welfare of its citizens;(3) a strong national energy program is needed to meet the present and future energy needs of the Nation consistent with overall national economic, environmental and social goals;(4) responsibility for energy policy, regulation, and research, development and demonstration is fragmented in many departments and agencies and thus does not allow for the comprehensive, centralized focus necessary for effective coordination of energy supply and conservation programs; and(5) formulation and implementation of a national energy program require the integration of major Federal energy functions into a single department in the executive branch.(Pub. L. 95–91, title I, § 101, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 567.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1982–1991 · leading case: Transcanada Pipelines Ltd. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, No. 87-1229, 878 F.2d 401 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Transcanada Pipelines Ltd. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, No. 87-1229, 878 F.2d 401 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “565 (1977), codified in part at 42 U.S.C. §§ 7111 et seq. (1982). The Act also created an independent agency within the Department, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which was given jurisdiction over the rates for transportation and sale of natural gas in domestic…”

United States v. Tex-La Elec. Coop., Inc., United States of Am. v. Ne. Texas Elec. Coop., Inc., 693 F.2d 392 (5th Cir. 1982). “” DOE Act § 101(4), 42 U.S.C. § 7111 (4). The idea behind the Act was centralization and administrative streamlining, but the result for those charged with interpreting the Flood Control Act has been confusion.”

Atl. Richfield Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 618 F. Supp. 1199 (D. Del. 1985). “(to maintain "fair and reasonable consumer prices” for scarce energy supplies); the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7111 et seq. ("to promote the interests of consumers through the provision of an adequate and reliable supply of energy at the lowest reasonable…”

Quivira Mining Co. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 728 F.2d 477 (10th Cir. 1984). “42 U.S.C. § 7111 et seq. (Supp. V 1981). The question which is presented is whether the exclusive review provisions for A.”

ANR Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 876 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “565 (1977), codified in part at 42 U.S.C. §§ 7111 et seq., split the responsibility for enforcing the Natural Gas Act between FERC and the Department of Energy.”

CF Indus., Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 925 F.2d 476 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7111 , 7112; see generally S.”

Wiggins Bros. v. Dep't of Energy, 548 F. Supp. 547 (N.D. Tex. 1982). “565 , 42 U.S.C. §§ 7111 et seq.; and the three Acts discussed above, the EPAA, the EPCA, and the ECPA.”

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.