661 F.3d 258
5th Cir.2011Background
- Texas Pipeline Association and Texas Railroad Commission petition FERC Order Nos. 720 and 720-A seeking vacatur.
- Order 720 implemented a Posting Rule requiring major non-interstate pipelines to disclose flow, capacity, and scheduling data.
- Order 720-A narrowed coverage but still required intrastate pipelines to post certain information.
- Governing statute is the Natural Gas Act (NGA); § 1(b) limits FERC to interstate transportation/sales and excludes intrastate activities.
- Congress added § 23 to facilitate price transparency in interstate markets, prompting FERC to rely on broad term 'any market participant'.
- FERC argued § 23 permits intrastate pipelines to be regulated for transparency; petitioners argued this exceeds NGA authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §23 authorizes posting by intrastate pipelines | §1(b) excludes intrastate pipelines from NGA. | §23 broadens authority to require data from any market participant. | Unambiguous limit: intrastate pipelines outside NGA; order vacated. |
| Chevron step-one sufficiency of §23 interpretation | Congress did not intend to regulate intrastate pipelines under §23. | Statute ambiguous; Chevron deferential standard applies. | Statutory text clear; no deference, §23 cannot reach intrastate pipelines. |
| Statutory context and congressional intent surrounding §1(b) and §23 | Legislative history confirms intrastate scope is excluded. | §23 creates a general transparency authority beyond §1(b). | Context confirms no expansion; NGA unambiguously precludes posting rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Northwest Central Pipeline Corp. v. State Corp. Comm'n of Kan., 489 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1989) (limits NGA scope and clarifies state-regulation boundaries)
- Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 337 U.S. 498 (U.S. 1949) (three core congressional powers over interstate natural gas)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (establishes framework for reviewing agency interpretation)
- FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (U.S. 2000) (ambiguity depends on statutory context, not isolated terms)
- Shell Oil Co. v. FERC, 566 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1978) (agency jurisdiction when activities are sales/transportation)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278 (U.S. 1997) (statutory exemptions tied to local intrastate regulation)
- Nw. Cent. Pipeline Corp. v. State Corp. Comm'n of Kan. (cited again), 489 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1989) (reaffirmation of regulatory boundaries)