Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01090/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01090-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Citizens Opposing North Alabama Pipeline Project
Petitioner
City of Huntsville, Alabama
Intervenor
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Respondent
GASP Coalition
Petitioner
Huntsville Utilities Gas System
Intervenor

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 24, 1999 Decided January 18, 2000

No. 98-1603

Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc.,

Petitioner

v.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

Respondent

Huntsville Utilities Gas System,

City of Huntsville, Alabama, et al.,

Intervenors

Consolidated with

98-1604, 99-1047, 99-1090

Petitions for Review of Orders of the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission

---------

Bernard A. Foster III, with whom Marvin T. Griff was on

the briefs, argued the cause for petitioner Midcoast Interstate

Transmission, Inc.

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 1 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Marvin T. Griff argued the cause and filed the briefs for

petitioners GASP Coalition and Citizens Opposing North

Alabama Pipeline Project.

Monique Penn-Jenkins, Attorney, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, with whom Jay L. Witkin, Solicitor, and

Susan J. Court, Special Counsel, FERC, were on the briefs,

argued the cause for respondent.

Knox Bemis, with whom R. David Hendrickson, James J.

Cleary, Glenn W. Letham, James R. Choukas-Bradley, Joshua Menter, Edward J. Grenier, and Gregory K. Lawrence

were on the briefs, argued the cause for intervenors. Wendell B. Hunt, Channing D. Strother, Jr., Jeffrey D. Komarow,

John T. Stough, Jr., Kevin M. Downey, and Joseph M.

Marcoux entered appearances.

Before Ginsburg and Randolph, Circuit Judges, and

Buckley, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion filed by Senior Judge Buckley.

Buckley, Senior Judge: Midcoast Interstate Transmission,

Inc., and two unincorporated associations have filed petitions

for review of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission orders

granting Southern Natural Gas Company's application to

construct a natural gas pipeline and denying Midcoast's alternative proposals for serving the same markets. Petitioners

claim that the Commission failed to make a reasoned evaluation of the competing environmental and economic factors and

that its approval of "rolled-in" rates for Southern's project

ignored the agency's own policy and precedent. Because we

conclude that the Commission neither abused its discretion

nor acted contrary to law, we deny the petitions.

I. Background

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

Under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act ("NGA"), 15 U.S.C.

ss 717-717z (1997), a company seeking to construct and

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 2 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

operate any portion of an interstate gas pipeline must apply

to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") for

a certificate of public convenience and necessity. 15 U.S.C.

s 717f(c)(1)(A). Such a certificate

shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor ... if it

is found that the applicant is able and willing properly to

do the acts and to perform the service proposed ... and

that the proposed service ... is or will be required by

the present or future public convenience and necessity.

Id. s 717f(e). In evaluating certificate applications, FERC

employs "a flexible balancing process, in the course of which

all the factors are weighed prior to final determination."

FPC v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 365 U.S. 1, 23

(1961). Congress and the Commission have both stated that

the promotion of competition in the natural gas industry is

one of the Commission's regulatory goals. See General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278, 283-84 (1997).

Section 4 of the NGA provides that "[a]ll rates and

charges" of a natural gas pipeline must be "just and reasonable." 15 U.S.C. s 717c(a). A pipeline may not change its

rates "except after thirty days' notice to the Commission and

to the public." Id. s 717c(d). When a pipeline files a new

rate, FERC may, upon receiving a complaint or on its own

initiative, "enter upon a hearing concerning the lawfulness of

such rate ...; and, pending such hearing and the decision

thereon, the Commission ... may ... defer the use of such

rate" for up to five months. Id. s 717c(e).

When an interstate pipeline proposes to expand its business

through the construction of new facilities ("expansion facilities"), FERC has the authority to establish the initial rates

that will be charged customers who will be served by those

facilities. See United Gas Improvement Co. v. Callery Properties, Inc., 382 U.S. 223, 227 (1965) (holding that Commission

may establish initial rates as condition to issuing certificate

"pending determination of a just and reasonable rate"

through a section 4 proceeding). In May 1995, the Commission issued a policy statement governing how the cost of new

pipeline construction should be "priced," i.e., reflected in the

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 3 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

pipeline's rate structure. See generally Pricing Policy For

New and Existing Facilities Constructed By Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, 71 FERC p 61,241 (1995) ("Pricing Policy"). The cost of construction may be recovered in either of

two ways: through "incremental" pricing, which imposes an

additional charge payable solely by customers who are directly served by the expansion facilities ("expansion customers");

or "rolled-in" pricing, in which the cost of the new facilities

are added to the pipeline's total rate base and reflected in

rates charged to all customers system-wide. See TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. v. FERC, 24 F.3d 305, 307 n.1 (D.C. Cir.

1994).

Under the Pricing Policy, when FERC grants a certificate

of public convenience and necessity, it either sets an incremental rate to be paid by consumers served by the new

facilities or establishes a presumption that the facilities will

be of sufficient benefit to existing customers to permit the

pipeline to roll their cost into its system-wide rates. See

Pricing Policy, 71 FERC at 61,915. If the Commission issues

a certificate with a presumption of rolled-in pricing, the

expansion customers will initially pay the pipeline's existing

system-wide rates. Otherwise, they will be required to pay

an incremental rate fixed by the Commission at the time the

certificate issues. Id. at 61,918 n.12. Those rates will remain

in place until superceded by new ones established in accordance with section 4 of the NGA.

To determine whether a pipeline qualifies for rolled-in

pricing, FERC "look[s] to the extent to which the new

facilities are integrated with the existing facilities and to the

specific system benefits produced by the project." Id. at

61,915-16. Where the pipeline can establish that the new

facilities will provide system-wide benefits and that the rolledin rate would constitute an increase of five percent or less to

existing customers, a rebuttable presumption is created in

favor of rolled-in rates. Id. at 61,916-17. In such instances,

the Pricing Policy requires the Commission to approve rolledin rates in the next section 4 proceeding absent evidence of a

"significant change in circumstance." Id. at 61,918.

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 4 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

While this case was pending, FERC issued a new policy

statement on the certification of pipeline projects that arguably would have required incremental pricing for the expansion facilities that are the subject of this case. See generally

Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, 88 FERC p 61,227 (1999). The new policy, however, has

no bearing on these proceedings because it does not apply

retroactively. See id. at 61,750; Southeastern Michigan Gas

Co. v. FERC, 133 F.3d 34, 37 n. 1 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("Because

FERC issued its [new pricing] rule after this case had begun

and did not rely on it in this proceeding, we do not consider

what effect its application would have had.").

B. Facts

On January 11, 1996, the municipalities of Huntsville and

Decatur, Alabama, (collectively, "the Cities") entered into

twenty-year gas supply contracts with Southern Natural Gas

Company ("Southern") to become effective following completion of a proposed North Alabama Pipeline and ancillary

facilities ("North Alabama Pipeline Project"). At the time,

the Cities were being served by Midcoast Interstate Transmission's predecessor, Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas Company (collectively, "Midcoast"). Shortly thereafter, Southern

filed an application with FERC, under section 7 of the NGA,

for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate these facilities. Southern's proposed pipeline would extend northward 118 miles from Southern's existing west-to-east natural gas pipeline to the Cities. To reach

those markets, the new pipeline would have to cross the

Tennessee River and Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge.

In July 1996, FERC made a preliminary determination,

contingent on the outcome of an ongoing environmental review, that Southern's proposed pipeline was required by the

public convenience and necessity. Southern Natural Gas Co.,

76 FERC p 61,122, 61,628, 61,647-48 (1996) ("Preliminary

Determination"). In it, FERC found that "absent significant

changes, [Southern would be allowed] to roll-in the costs of

the facilities in its next rate case." Id. at 61,637.

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 5 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

During the course of the environmental review of Southern's proposal, FERC considered various system and route

options, including the Alabama-Tennessee System Alternative ("Alabama-Tennessee Alternative") for which Midcoast

had filed a certificate application. Southern Natural Gas Co.,

79 FERC p 61,280, 62,200, 62,205 (1997) ("Certificate Order");

Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas Co., 79 FERC p 61,283,

62,237 (1997) ("Order on Application"). This alternative consisted, essentially, of improving the capacity and efficiency of

Midcoast's existing system through the addition of two compressors and related facilities. These would enable Midcoast

to increase delivery pressures, lower rates, and meet the

Cities' increasing demands for gas. Approval of the

Alabama-Tennessee Alternative would render the Southern

project superfluous.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") for

Southern's proposal was released on May 23, 1997. Although

it noted that FERC, the Environmental Protection Agency,

and the Department of the Interior all agreed that the

Alabama-Tennessee Alternative was environmentally preferable to Southern's proposed pipeline, it nevertheless found the

adverse impact of Southern's proposed pipeline to be limited,

and that, with the adoption of the recommended mitigation

measures, the project would be environmentally acceptable.

FEIS at S-1. In an order citing this conclusion, FERC

approved the construction of the North Alabama Pipeline

Project subject to certain conditions, including compliance

with specified environmental requirements. Certificate Order, 79 FERC at 62,208, 62,222-23. While it acknowledged

the environmental superiority of the Alabama-Tennessee Alternative, the Commission declared that it was approving

Southern's project "for countervailing policy reasons." Id. at

62,205. It described its decision as "providing for the first

time in forty-seven years a competitive alternative for

Alabama-Tennessee's current captive customers," id. at

62,208, and noted that the Cities had taken advantage of this

option by deciding to enter into long-term contracts with

Southern rather than having to rely on Midcoast for their

natural gas. Id. at 62,209. Following the issuance of the

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 6 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

certificate, and despite the petition for review of the Commission's decision then pending before this court, Southern proceeded with construction of the pipeline. By September 1999,

Southern had spent approximately $60 million on the project.

The Certificate Order incorporated the Preliminary Determination's "findings with respect to the nonenvironmental

issues," id. at 62,222, which included those relating to rolledin pricing. As a consequence, the Cities initially will be

charged Southern's system-wide rates until such time as new

rates are established in a section 4 proceeding. A statement

made by Southern's counsel at oral argument and subsequent

submissions by the Cities to the court suggest a disagreement

as to the Cities' obligation to continue to use Southern's

facilities in the event the Commission should order the payment of incremental rates. Southern contends that the Cities

are under a twenty-year obligation to utilize the North Alabama Pipeline irrespective of the rates they are required to

pay; the Cities maintain that their contracts do not require

them to pay other than rolled-in rates.

FERC denied Midcoast's application for the AlabamaTennessee Alternative. In doing so, the Commission cited

Midcoast's failure to determine the correct sizing of the

proposed project by conducting an "open season" during

which prospective shippers submit their capacity requests, as

well as its failure to demonstrate market support in the form

of contracts or other understandings with the local distribution companies it proposed to supply. See Order on Application, 79 FERC at 62,240-41 (deferring action on application);

Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc., 83 FERC p 61,195,

61,831 (1998) ("Order Dismissing Application").

Midcoast filed a second certificate application seeking to

serve the Cities through a proposed Hartselle System Alternative ("Hartselle Alternative"). This alternative would permit Southern to construct the first 98 miles of its proposed

pipeline, at which point the line would be connected with

Midcoast's existing system. In this manner, gas originating

in the Southern system could be delivered to the Cities

without the need for a new crossing of the environmentally

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 7 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

sensitive Tennessee River and Wheeler National Wildlife

Refuge. FERC dismissed this application because of Midcoast's failure to provide a complete response to a request for

certain environmental information and because, unlike Southern, it had no contracts or other evidence of market support

for the project. See Order Dismissing Application, 83 FERC

at 61,831.

II. Discussion

Petitioners maintain that FERC's decisions to grant a

certificate of public convenience and necessity to Southern

and to deny certificates to Midcoast were arbitrary and

capricious. They also challenge the Commission's application

of its Pricing Policy to establish a presumption that Southern

will be able to roll the construction costs of the North

Alabama Pipeline Project into its system-wide rates. Finally,

GASP Coalition ("GASP"), an unincorporated association of

individuals and groups concerned with the environmental

aspects of natural gas pipeline regulation, and Citizens Opposing North Alabama Pipeline Project ("CONAPP"), an

unincorporated association formed to challenge Southern's

expansion project, argue that FERC authorized Southern to

exercise the power of eminent domain in violation of the Fifth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. We have

jurisdiction to hear these consolidated cases pursuant to 15

U.S.C. s 717r(b).

A. Standard of Review

A reviewing court "must uphold the Commission's decision

unless it is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law.' " Michigan Consol.

Gas Co. v. FERC, 883 F.2d 117, 120 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (quoting

5 U.S.C. s 706(2)(A) (1982)). The Commission, however,

must "articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a 'rational connection between the facts found and the

choice made.' " Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the United

States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43

(1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United

States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 8 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

B. FERC's Decision to Grant Southern's Certificate

Midcoast asserts that FERC's decision to grant Southern's

certificate for the North Alabama Pipeline Project was arbitrary and capricious for two reasons: first, the agency failed

adequately to evaluate project alternatives that were environmentally and economically preferable to Southern's proposal;

and second, the record does not support FERC's conclusion

that Southern's proposal would promote competition in the

natural gas market.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"),

FERC is required to evaluate the environmental impact of

each proposed project and issue an Environmental Impact

Statement ("EIS"). See 42 U.S.C. s 4332 (1994). The EIS

must provide "a detailed statement ... on ... alternatives to

the proposed action" and their environmental consequences.

Id. s 4332(C)(iii). As the Supreme Court has observed,

however,

it is now well settled that NEPA itself does not mandate

particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary

process. If the adverse environmental effects of the

proposed action are adequately identified and evaluated,

the agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding

that other values outweigh the environmental costs.

Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332,

350 (1989) (citations omitted). All that is required is that the

agency "identify the reasonable alternatives to the contemplated action" and "look hard at the environmental effects of

[its] decision[ ]." Corridor H Alternatives, Inc. v. Slater, 166

F.3d 368, 374 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted).

FERC concedes the environmental superiority of the

Alabama-Tennessee Alternative, but it has given both the

environmental issues and the alternatives to the North Alabama Pipeline Project careful consideration. See Certificate

Order, 79 FERC at 62,202-05. Having taken the required

"hard look," the Commission concluded that other values

outweighed what the FEIS described as the project's limited

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 9 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

but nonetheless acceptable environmental costs if specified

mitigation measures were taken. It then conditioned the

certificate on Southern's compliance with those measures.

This strikes us as responsible agency decision making.

Nor can we fault the Commission's rejection of Midcoast's

claims of economic superiority for its own alternatives, given

the Cities' decisions to enter into long-term contracts with

Southern. We have "consistently required the Commission to

give weight to the contracts and settlements of the parties

before it," provided that its authorization of a proposed

service represents the agency's "independent judgment [that]

the new service 'is or will be required by the present or

future public convenience and necessity.' " Tejas Power

Corp. v. FERC, 908 F.2d 998, 1003 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (quoting

NGA s 7(e), 15 U.S.C. s 717f(e)). FERC made such a

determination here. In its Certificate Order, it considered

Southern's ability to provide the desired service, its own

policy of introducing pipeline competition to a market where

none had previously existed, the Cities' expressed desire to

have an alternate source of natural gas, and the benefits that

Southern's proposed pipeline would offer the Cities in terms

of increased delivery pressure, better service, and the elimination of scheduling complexities. Certificate Order, 79

FERC at 62,208-10.

FERC was entitled to take competition into consideration

in determining whether to approve Southern's certificate

application. The agency had developed a long-standing policy

of favoring competition in natural gas markets, and it had

"identified the benefits that it believed competition throughout that market would afford consumers, and adopted

industry-transforming rules aimed at securing them." See,

e.g., Kansas Power and Light Co. v. FERC, 891 F.2d 939, 942

(D.C. Cir. 1989). FERC was entitled to rely on the general

economic theory that the introduction of competition to the

market will benefit consumers. See Associated Gas Distribs.

v. FERC, 824 F.2d 981, 1008-09 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ("Agencies

do not need to conduct experiments in order to rely on ...

predictions that competition will normally lead to lower

prices.").

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 10 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Although the Commission has since adopted a new pricing

policy that constitutes a distinct departure from its previous

approach in situations comparable to the one now before us,

that fact is irrelevant to the question of whether it acted

arbitrarily or capriciously at the time it issued the orders now

being challenged. We are not impressed by Midcoast's arguments that the economic advantages of its alternatives were

so self-evident at the time FERC issued the certificate to

Southern that its reliance on its existing policy was unreasonable. Nor are we impressed by Midcoast's charge that the

Commission has effectively substituted one monopoly for

another. The ability of the Cities to contract with Southern

on a long-term basis for the shipment of their natural gas

reflects the fact that, for the first time, they had a choice of

providers. Their choice of one pipeline over another does not

evidence a lack of competition. To the contrary, "[u]nsuccessful bidders are no less competitors than the successful

one. The presence of two or more suppliers gives buyers a

choice." United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 376 U.S.

651, 661 (1964).

C. Rolled-In Rate Presumption

1. Jurisdiction

The Commission argues that we should dismiss the petitions for review of the rolled-in pricing determination for two

reasons. It asserts, first, that the parties are not aggrieved

by the order, as required by section 19(b) of the NGA as a

precondition to seeking judicial review, 15 U.S.C. s 717r(b)

("Any party ... aggrieved by an order of the Commission ...

may obtain a review of such order in [a U.S.] court of

appeals"), and second, that the issue is not ripe for review.

While FERC's statement of the law is correct, it ignores

the fact that its rolled-in pricing determination can have

consequences more immediate than the establishment of a

presumption for a future rate proceeding. Midcoast contends, in effect, that but for that determination, it would not

be faced with the loss of the Cities' business upon the

completion of the North Alabama Pipeline. If that claim

survives analysis, there can be no question that Midcoast has

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 11 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

suffered a certain, concrete injury that satisfies both the

statutory and constitutional requirements for judicial review.

Whether Midcoast is aggrieved is a question of fact; and

where they are in dispute, a court must assume the correctness of the challenging party's version of the facts. See City

of New Orleans, LA v. FERC, 67 F.3d 947, 952 (D.C. Cir.

1995). Furthermore, in determining whether an injury exists, a court may go beyond the reasons advanced by the

challenger in support of its standing. See American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 166 F.3d

374, 385 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (inferring an argument in support of

standing); see also United States Int'l Trade Comm'n v.

Tenneco West, 822 F.2d 73, 75 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (finding

standing for reason other than those offered by Commission).

Midcoast's response to FERC's aggrievement argument

reflects more astonishment than coherence. Nevertheless, in

its briefs and in the administrative proceedings, Midcoast has

presented facts which, if correct, fully support a finding that

it has been aggrieved by the pricing determination. Midcoast

has calculated that if the Commission had required incremental pricing, Southern would have to charge users of the North

Alabama Pipeline an incremental rate of $10.00 in addition to

its system-wide rate of $8.80, for a total of $18.80 per

decatherm per month, as compared with the $8.60 that Midcoast proposed to charge. Midcoast contends that given this

disparity, FERC could not have found that the North Alabama Pipeline would be a "competitive alternative" to Midcoast, Certificate Order, 79 FERC at 62,208; therefore, it

would not have authorized its construction.

Accepting, as we must for purposes of our analysis, the

accuracy of Midcoast's calculation of the incremental rate

Southern would be required to charge, we are satisfied that

Midcoast has been aggrieved. As a direct consequence of the

agency's action and irrespective of the outcome of a future

rate proceeding, Midcoast will have lost the Cities' business

from the moment the North Alabama Pipeline begins deliveries of natural gas until the time that the Cities are released

from their obligations under the Southern contracts--whether

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 12 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

that be at the expiration of twenty years (as Southern contends), or at an earlier date (in the Cities' view) if FERC

should subsequently order the payment of other than rolledin rates.

It is for this reason that we also find the issue ripe for

review. FERC argues that the challenge to rolled-in pricing

is not ripe because the Preliminary Determination did no

more than establish a rebuttable presumption in Southern's

favor; therefore, the matter should be deferred until it can be

determined whether rolled-in rates will in fact be applied. As

we have pointed out, however, Midcoast's injury is based not

on the likelihood that such rates will be imposed in the future

but on the inescapable fact that, following the Southern

project's completion, Midcoast will lose the Cities' business

for an indeterminate period. It is this that distinguishes the

present case from New York State Electric & Gas Corp. v.

FERC, 177 F.3d 1037, 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1999), in which we held

unripe a challenge to FERC's establishment of a presumption

in favor of rolled-in rates in a certificate proceeding. That

case was brought not by a competitor, but by a ratepayer who

would continue to pay existing rates until it was determined,

in the course of the pipeline's next section 4 filing, whether

system-wide customers would be required to absorb the cost

of new construction through the imposition of rolled-in rates.

Id. at 1040. Because Midcoast faces an imminent loss irrespective of the outcome of a future rate proceeding, there can

be no question that the Commission's pricing determination is

ripe for review under the classic test established in Abbott

Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967): the legality of the rolled-in pricing determination is fit for immediate

judicial decision, and the hardship faced by Midcoast is

indisputable.

2. The merits

Having found Midcoast's challenge to be properly before

us, we now turn to the merits of its claim. Midcoast alleges

that the Commission's decision to establish a presumption of

rolled-in rates was erroneous for two reasons: first, the

Pricing Policy is not applicable to cases, such as this, that

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 13 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

involve questions of fair competition; and second, even if the

policy does apply to this case, Southern's project did not meet

the policy's criteria for rolled-in pricing.

Petitioners' first argument presents a general challenge to

the Commission's use of its Pricing Policy in a situation where

pipelines of disparate sizes are competing to serve a particular market. Midcoast maintains that, in such instances, application of the policy will distort market realities because large

pipeline systems, such as Southern's, can readily absorb the

rolled-in cost of new projects without experiencing a rise in

system-wide rates that will exceed the policy's five percent

limit. As a result, the cost of the expansion facilities is

subsidized by the larger pipeline's existing system-wide customers to the detriment of the smaller competitor. Midcoast

argues that to apply the Pricing Policy in a manner that

favors one pipeline over another makes a mockery of FERC's

contention that its certificate order serves the interest of

competition.

While it is true that the Commission emphasized the desirability of providing the Cities with a choice between pipelines,

Midcoast's argument ignores the independent purpose of the

Pricing Policy, which was to "provide parties with greater

certainty about the rate design that will be applied" to new

pipelines, thereby allowing them to make better decisions as

to such matters as the amount of capacity to develop. Pricing

Policy, 71 FERC at 61,915. The Commission, and all those

who offered comments during the development of the Pricing

Policy, felt that such certainty was needed to encourage

efficient growth in the natural gas industry as a whole

following the Commission's restructuring of the industry to

convert pipelines into common carriers. Id. at 61,914-15

(discussing orders providing for open-access transportation

service and unbundling the sale of gas from related transportation service). In deciding to encourage efficient pipeline

expansion by offering greater rate certainty at the outset in

circumstances that could affect the balance of market forces,

FERC exercised the kind of judgment on matters of policy

that Congress has entrusted to it. As the Supreme Court has

reminded us, "[t]he scope of review under the 'arbitrary and

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 14 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

capricious' standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute

its judgment for that of the agency." Motor Vehicle Mfrs.

Ass'n, 463 U.S. at 43. Because the Commission fully addressed Midcoast's argument, we cannot fault its decision to

apply its policy to the facts of this case.

We now address Midcoast's contention that FERC misapplied the Pricing Policy. In reaching a pricing decision, the

Commission will evaluate two factors: "the system-wide benefits of the project and the rate impact on existing customers."

Pricing Policy, 71 FERC at 61,915. In assessing the first of

these, the Commission will "look to the extent to which the

new facilities are integrated with the existing facilities and to

the specific system benefits conferred by the project." Id. at

61,915-16. If the proposed facilities are sufficiently integrated and the impact on existing customers is an increase of five

percent or less, the Commission will generally apply the

presumption in favor of rolled-in rates. Id. at 61,916.

The "question of how to allocate costs among a pipeline's

customers is a difficult issue of fact, and one on which the

Commission enjoys broad discretion." Algonquin Gas Transmission Co. v. FERC, 948 F.2d 1305, 1313 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As always,

its conclusions must be supported by substantial evidence;

and when FERC determines that rolled-in pricing is warranted, it must "outline[ ] with reasonable particularity the system-wide benefits which each new facility produces." Id.

(discussing standard of review of Commission's decision in

rate case).

In addition to finding that the system would realize a longterm economic benefit of $25 million, the Commission identified four operational benefits that the Southern project would

provide existing customers: enhancement of system reliability, increase in the availability of interruptible transportation

service, the availability of new opportunities for marketers

and shippers, and the provision of firm service for increased

shipments to the Cities by two Southern system shippers.

Preliminary Determination, 76 FERC at 61,638. These benefits are comparable to the examples cited in the Pricing Policy

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 15 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

as justifying rolled-in rates, Pricing Policy, 71 FERC at

61,916 ("increased access, reliability, flexibility, or new services"); and FERC has presented sufficient evidence to support its conclusion that these benefits satisfy the first prong

of its two-factor test.

In addressing the second, "five percent" prong, the Commission provided a detailed explanation of how it determined

that rolling in the project's construction costs would result in

a rate increase of only 1.8 percent. See Southern Natural

Gas Co., 85 FERC p 61,134, 61,526 (1998) ("Order Amending

Certificate"). Although the cost of the project has reportedly

increased from $66.6 million at the time the Commission

made its computation to $103.5 million, this cost overrun

would result in a rate increase of only 2.8 percent, well within

the limits of the Pricing Policy. In its Preliminary Determination, the Commission described in detail why it chose a

particular depreciation rate and rate of return, why it included or did not include certain portions of Southern's claimed

contract demand, and how it calculated the return Southern

would receive from the new facility over time. Preliminary

Determination, 76 FERC at 61,637-38. Furthermore, the

Commission did not blindly accept the numbers provided by

Southern, finding, for example, that the long-term system

benefit would be some $10 million less than the figure submitted by the pipeline. Id. at 61,638. Finally, the Commission

specifically addressed the issues Midcoast raised in subsequent motions to reconsider and again explained in some

detail how and why it arrived at its conclusions. See, e.g.,

Certificate Order, 79 FERC at 62,214-15.

Midcoast repeatedly argued that Southern's proposed pipeline was "a downstream lateral for the benefit of one or only a

small number of customers" (quoting the Pricing Policy, 71

FERC at 61,917) and, therefore, should not receive rolled-in

pricing under the Pricing Policy. The Commission failed to

address this argument in any meaningful way. Instead, it

dismissed the issue with the following comment:

[Midcoast's] assertion that the proposed project is a

lateral and thus does not qualify for rolled-in treatment

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 16 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

under the policy statement is without merit. As Southern notes, its system generally consists of two parallel

mainlines with 15 mainline extensions totaling nearly

1350 miles and serving 66 firm shippers at 196 delivery

points. The proposed facilities are similar to Southern's

other mainline extensions that have been granted rolledin rate treatment.

Preliminary Determination, 76 FERC at 61,638-39. In responding to Midcoast's argument in later petitions for rehearing, the Commission simply referred back to this conclusory

"determination" that the proposal was a mainline extension

rather than a lateral. See, e.g., Order Amending Certificate,

85 FERC at 61,526; Southern Natural Gas Co., 86 FERC

p 61,129, 61,437 (1999).

As unsatisfactory as these responses are, we will not remand the issue for further explanation because the reason

that downstream laterals built for the sole benefit of a few

customers do not qualify for rolled-in pricing is that they

cannot meet the first criterion set forth in the Pricing Policy:

they do not provide system-wide benefits. This is made clear

in the balance of the sentence quoted by Midcoast: in such

cases, "the Commission generally will presume that the project should be priced incrementally, because other shippers

will not share in the benefits." Pricing Policy, 71 FERC at

61,917 (emphasis added).

Furthermore, the Commission explained that it

did not rely on th[e] fact [that the proposed facilities are

similar to Southern's other mainline expansions] to approve Southern's rolled-in rate proposal.... [T]he Commission based its approval of rolled-in rate treatment on

its determination that the proposal met the pricing policy's two pronged test....

Southern Natural Gas Co., 86 FERC at 61,438. Because the

agency's findings of system-wide benefits and a minimal rate

impact are supported by substantial evidence, we reject this

challenge to its rolled-in pricing determination.

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 17 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

D. The Decision to Deny Midcoast's Petitions

Midcoast argues that the Commission's dismissals of its

petitions to construct and operate the Alabama-Tennessee

and Hartselle alternatives were unreasonable and an abuse of

discretion. We disagree.

The application for the Alabama-Tennessee Alternative

was rejected because of Midcoast's failure to hold an open

season, to solicit permanent capacity release offers, to allocate

some existing capacity in a non-discriminatory way through a

bidding process, and to demonstrate market support for its

proposal. Order Dismissing Application, 83 FERC at 61,829-

30. The Hartselle Alternative application was rejected for

failure to file an appropriate environmental report and to

demonstrate market support. Id. at 61,831.

Certain types of market data "must accompany each application when tendered for filing." 18 C.F.R. s 157.14(a) (1999)

(emphasis added). The data to be submitted include a "[c]onformed copy of each contract, letter of intent or other agreement for sale or transportation of natural gas." Id.

s 157.14(a)(11)(v). If no agreements exist, the applicant must

explain its "basis for assuming that contracts will be consummated and that service will be rendered under the terms

contemplated in the application." Id. Midcoast failed or was

unable to provide this information for either of its proposals.

That the latter may be the case is suggested by the statement, in the Commission's order dismissing the applications,

that "the shippers responding to Southern's open season

adamantly do not want the service from Midcoast." Order

Dismissing Application, 83 FERC at 61,830. Be that as it

may, in light of Midcoast's failure to comply with the regulations, FERC's dismissal of the applications is hardly surprising and certainly not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.

E. Fifth Amendment Claim

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

provides that private property may not be taken for public

use without just compensation. U.S. Const. amend. V.

GASP and CONAPP argue that the promotion of competition

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 18 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

in natural gas markets is not a legitimate public interest

sufficient to justify the condemnation of the land required for

the pipeline's right-of-way. Furthermore, even assuming that

the enhancement of competition is a permissible public interest, GASP and CONAPP claim that Southern's taking of

private property for its project is not constitutional because

competition will not actually be achieved by the Commission's

substitution of one natural gas pipeline monopoly for another.

Our role in reviewing the use of the condemnation power is

extremely narrow.

[A]s long as the condemning authorities were rational in

their positions that some public purpose was served ...

[t]hat suffices to satisfy the Constitution, and we need

not make a specific factual determination whether the

condemnation will accomplish its objectives.

National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503

U.S. 407, 422-23 (1992). Furthermore, the NGA explicitly

provides that

[n]othing contained in this section shall be construed

as a limitation upon the power of the Commission to

grant certificates of public convenience and necessity for

service of an area already being served by another

natural-gas company.

15 U.S.C. s 717f(g).

Once a certificate has been granted, the statute allows the

certificate holder to obtain needed private property by eminent domain. Id. s 717f(h). The Commission does not have

the discretion to deny a certificate holder the power of

eminent domain. As we have already discussed, it was not

improper for FERC to consider the desirability of competition when it decided to grant Southern's application, and its

action did not result in the substitution of one monopoly for

another. In light of the above, and because, in issuing the

certificate to Southern, the Commission has explicitly declared that the North Alabama Pipeline will serve the public

convenience and necessity, we hold that the takings complained of served a public purpose.

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 19 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are

Denied.

USCA Case #99-1090 Document #491010 Filed: 01/18/2000 Page 20 of 20