Case Name: ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and Arkansas Western Gas Company v. ARKANSAS CHARCOAL COMPANY and TXO Production Corporation
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1989-03-20
Citations: 298 Ark. 301
Docket Number: 89-13
Parties: ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and Arkansas Western Gas Company v. ARKANSAS CHARCOAL COMPANY and TXO Production Corporation
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 298
Pages: 301–302

Head Matter:
ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and Arkansas Western Gas Company v. ARKANSAS CHARCOAL COMPANY and TXO Production Corporation
89-13
766 S.W.2d 931
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered March 20, 1989
George C. Vena, Ass’t Gen. Counsel, for petitioner Arkansas Public Service Commission.
Keck, Mahin & Cate, by: Robert Y. Hirasuna and Jeffrey L. Dangeau, for petitioner Arkansas Western Gas Company.
Steve Clark, Att’y Gen., by: Paul Cherry, Asst. Att’y Gen., for petitioner Consumer Utility Rate Advocacy Division.
Preston, Thorgrimson, Ellis & Holman, by: Carol S. Arnold', and Rose Law Firm, A Professional Association, by: Herbert C. Rule III, for respondent TXO Production Corp.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
On February 6,1989, we granted review of the
decision of the Arkansas Court of Appeals in which it was held that the Arkansas Public Service Commission could not regulate a pipeline from a TXO facility to Arkansas Charcoal Company except to the extent of requiring an environmental impact statement.
The Commission and Arkansas Western Gas Company have moved to stay the mandate of the court of appeals. TXO and Arkansas Charcoal Company oppose the motion for fear that staying the court of appeals mandate will reinstate cease and desist orders issued by the Commission which were the subject of the appeal to the court of appeals. They suggest that if the court of appeals mandate is stayed, the only way to retain the status quo is to stay the cease and desist orders of the Commission as well.
The Commission and Arkansas Western Gas Company have responded that they have no objection to staying the Commission's orders.
The court of appeals mandate in this case is stayed as are the orders of the Commission.