United Gas Pipe line v Mobile Gas Svcp 350 U Despriction

246 F2d 915 Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America v. D

United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Corporation, 350 U.S. 332, 76 S.Ct. 373, 100 L.Ed. 373. Moreover, in the Atlantic Coast Line case, supra, the railroad carrier was entitled to the protection of the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission against being required to accept the unreasonably low intrastate rates, while here the primary aim 344 F2d 525 American Louisiana Pipe Line Company v See Mississippi River Fuel Corp. v. FPC, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 238, 243, 252 F.2d 619, 624 (1957). As to the interdependence of Sections 4 and 5 of the Natural Gas Act, see United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobil Gas Co., 350 U.S. 332, 341-345, 76 S.Ct. 373, 100 L.Ed. 373 (1956).

358 US 103 United Gas Pipe Line Company v. Memphis

4. On February 27, 1956, this Court announced its decision in United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., 350 U.S. 332, 76 S.Ct. 373, 100 L.Ed. 373, in which it was held that United could not escape a contract obligation to furnish Mobile with natural gas at a single specified price for a term of years by unilaterally filing an increased rate schedule under § 4(d) of the Natural Gas 54 F3d 893 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation v 1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certified Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line's Southern Expansion service, subject to a condition altering its proposed rate design; on rehearing, it reversed course and accepted Transco's proposed design; thereafter, it twice modified the order, ultimately ruling that the approved rates should become effective only a year after the start of service. ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS COMPANY, Petitioner, v. See United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., supra, 350 U.S., at 338-339, 76 S.Ct., at 377-378. That rule does not affect the supremacy of the Act itself, and under the filed rate doctrine, when there is a conflict between the filed rate and the contract rate, the filed rate controls.

Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall ::453 U.S. 571 (1981

See United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., supra, at 350 U. S. 338-339. That rule does not affect the supremacy of the Act itself, and, under the filed rate doctrine, when there is a conflict between the filed rate and the contract rate, the filed rate controls. Before Commissioners:Neil Chatterjee, Chairman; Cheryl Nov 16, 2017 · Natural Gas Act (NGA) authorizing Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Millennium) to construct and operate 7.8 miles of 16-inch-diameter lateral pipeline and related facilities in Orange County, New York, known as the Valley Lateral Project. 1 On December 9, 2016, Sarah Burns, Amanda King, Melody S. Brunn, and Pramilla Malick (collectively, Cheryl A. LaFleur, Neil Chatterjee, Dominion Transmission May 18, 2018 · Pacific Power Co., 350 U.S. 348 (1956); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobil Gas Service Corp. , 350 U.S. 332 (1956). 15 See Old Dominion Electric Cooperative , 154 FERC ¶

Contact us directory ExxonMobil

For information on our credit, commercial, fleet and gift cards and the Exxon Mobil Rewards+ program or mobile app. Commercial Credit Cards. ExxonMobil Business Card Program Details / Apply Online Inquiries / Lost or Stolen Card:1-800-903-9966 TTY for Hearing/Speech Impaired:1-888-944-2227 Online Technical Assistance:1-866-460-5350 (option 2) FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. SIERRA Arkansas Natural Gas Co. v. Arkansas Railroad Comm., 261 U.S. 379, 43 S.Ct. 387, 67 L.Ed. 705. In such circumstances the sole concern of the Commission would seem to be whether the rate is so low as to adversely affect the public interestas where it might impair the financial ability of the public utility to contunue its service, cast upon Homepage [toptiergas]AAA Mobile App (IOS) AAA Mobile App (Android) Developed by auto companies Supplied by fuel retailers. Station finder. Stations near me! TOP TIER

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE

See United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Serv. Corp., 350 U.S. 332, 341 -45 (1956) (Mobile); Fed. Power Commn v .Sierra Pac P. ower Co. 350 U, S. .348, 354 -55 (1956) (Sierra) (collectively, Mobile-Sierra ). Case 20-11548-CSS Doc 653 Filed 09/17/20 Page 2 of 8 List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 2006 On July 22, a Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company gas transmission pipeline ruptured, resulting in an estimated release of 42,946,000 cu ft (1,216,100 m 3) of natural gas near Clay City in Clark County, Kentucky. The gas ignited, but there were no injuries, and just minor property damage. Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Serv. Corp., 350 U.S. 332, 343 (1956); FPC v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., 350 U.S. 348, 353 (1956); FPC v. Texaco Inc., 417 U.S. 380, 397 (1974). III. We further hold that Order No. 451's abandonment procedures fully comport with the requirements set forth in § 7(b) of the NGA. 15 U.S. C. § 717f(b). In

Mobil Oil v. United Distribution ::498 U.S. 211 (1991

United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. McCombs, 442 U. S. 529, distinguished. Respondents cannot claim that the Commission made no provision for individual determinations under its abandonment procedures where appropriate, since Order No. 451 authorizes a purchaser objecting to a given abandonment on the grounds that the conditions the agency has set Mobile Sierra Sample Clauses - Law InsiderMobile Sierra. Absent the agreement of all Parties to the proposed change, the standard of review for changes to any portion of this Confirmation Agreement entered into hereunder proposed by a Party, a non-party, or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acting sua sponte, shall be the public interest standard of review set forth in United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESUnited Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., 350 U. S. 332; FPC. v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., 350 U. S. 348. Under FERCs cur-rent regulatory regime, a wholesale electricity seller may file a mar-ket-based tariff, which simply states that the utility will enter into freely negotiated contracts with purchasers. Those contracts

T-Mobile & Sprint Merged to Create the Best Wireless Carrier

Sprint is now part of T-Mobile, creating the best wireless company around with America's largest 5G network. Explore unlimited plans, deals, and join today! UNITED GAS CO. v. MEMPHIS GAS DIV 358 U.S. 103 U.S (a) United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., 350 U.S. 332, distinguished. Pp. 109-111. (b) The procedures prescribed by § 4(d) and § 4(e) are not limited to instances where the parties have mutually agreed upon specific new rates. Pp. 111-114. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Serv. Corp., 350 U.S. 344 (1956) (Mobile-Sierra). As the Commission has explained, under . Mobile-Sierra, in determining whether contracts, such as the ones at issue under the Reorganization Plan, should be amended, the

United Gas Co. v. Memphis Gas Div., 358 U.S. 103, 79 S. Ct

On February 27, 1956, this Court announced its decision in United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., 350 U.S. 332, in which it was held that United could not escape a contract obligation to furnish Mobile with natural gas at a single specified price for a term of *108 years by unilaterally filing an increased rate schedule under United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co. ::369 U.S United is an interstate pipeline company that brings natural gas into Alabama and supplies it in the City of Mobile to a distributor, Mobile Gas. United delivers gas to Mobile Gas at three stations, not for resale, but for delivery to appellees under contracts between appellant and appellees. United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Memphis Gas Div. ::358 U.S On February 27, 1956, this Court announced its decision in United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., 350 U. S. 332, in which it was held that United could not escape a contract obligation to furnish Mobile with natural gas at a single specified price for a term of

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. FEDERAL

the United States Supreme Court. The first such case was United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., 350 U.S. 332, 76 S.Ct. 373, 100 L.Ed. 373 (1956). There, United Gas Pipe Line Co. ("United") contractually agreed to furnish natural gas to Mobile Gas Service Co. ("Mobile") for a ten-year period at twelve cents per thousand cubic feet upreme ourt of tniteb tate - SCOTUSblogIn United Gas Pipeline Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., 350 U.S. 332 (1956), and FPC v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., 350 U.S. 348 (1956), this Court established what is now known as the Mobile-Sierra doctrine. Under that doctrine, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") may not overturn an agreed-upon contract rate for electri-United Gas Co. v. Mobile Gas Corp., 350 U.S. 332, 76 S. Ct 350 U.S. 332 (1956) UNITED GAS PIPE LINE CO. v. MOBILE GAS SERVICE CORP. ET AL. No. 17. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 7-8, 1955. Decided February 27, 1956. ON CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. [*] *333 Thomas Fletcher argued the cause for petitioner in No. 17. With him on the brief was C