Opinion ID: 527537
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Commission's Rulings

Text: 90 In Opinion No. 265, 38 F.E.R.C. p 61,164 (1987), the Commission failed to mention any effective date for the changes it ordered in Panhandle's rates regarding cost classification, cost allocation, and rate design (including minimum bill). In upholding CILCO's complaint seeking elimination of the sole supplier provision, the agency declared: [W]e shall require that Panhandle's tariff be modified prospectively from the effective date of this order (i.e., February 20, 1987). Id. at 61,470. In the same opinion, however, FERC directed Panhandle to file a revised tariff (and any necessary amendments to its rate schedules) within forty-five days of the date the opinion issued, but provided that if applications for rehearing were still pending at that time, Panhandle's submission shall be made thirty days from the date of the Commission's final disposition of applications for rehearing. Id. at 61,472. 91 In Opinion No. 265-A, 40 F.E.R.C. p 61,189 (1987), FERC considered a request for clarification by Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (MichCon) and a related motion by East Ohio Gas Company (East Ohio). These companies believed that the Commission's order to eliminate Panhandle's minimum bills took effect on February 20, 1987 (the date of Opinion No. 265) because, under 18 C.F.R. Sec. 385.2007(c), FERC orders are effective on the date they issue unless the Commission directs otherwise. 40 F.E.R.C. at 61,599. East Ohio advanced two other arguments in support of a February 20 effective date. Id. First, Opinion No. 265 remained in force because no stay had been sought or granted; filing an application for rehearing did not stay the order under section 19(c) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 717r(c). Second, Paragraph E of Article II, Part 1 of the Agreement mandated revision of tariff sheets upon issuance of any Commission order concerning ... minimum bills, not upon an order on rehearing. 92 Disputing this interpretation, Panhandle claimed that the effective date would occur when its rates were fixed within the meaning of Electrical District No. 1 v. FERC, 774 F.2d 490 (D.C.Cir.1985)--i.e., when FERC accepted Panhandle's new rate filing that the pipeline was obliged, under Opinion No. 265, 38 F.E.R.C. at 61,472, to submit within thirty days of the date that the Commission disposed of all rehearing applications. Panhandle argued that Electrical District was consistent with Paragraph E, which also provided for a motion for prospective revision of tariff sheets after issuance of an order. See 41 F.E.R.C. at 61,309. 93 FERC denied MichCon and East Ohio's motions and also rejected Panhandle's argument. Instead, it concluded: 94 Electrical District No. 1 does not apply here because the settlement [agreement] is controlling. Specifically, Article II, Part 4.A provides that any changes to Panhandle's tariffs, including minimum bill matters, be made effective prospectively from and after a Commission order disposing of [the] issues.... [W]e interpret the provision to mean from the date the rehearing order is issued. We believe our interpretation best reflects the intent of the parties. 95 Opinion No. 265-A, 40 F.E.R.C. at 61,599. Accordingly, FERC ordered that [e]limination of the minimum bills takes effect upon the date this order on rehearing issues (i.e., August 19, 1987). Id. at 61,601. 96 On November 4, 1987, the Commission reaffirmed Opinion No. 265-A. See 41 F.E.R.C. p 61,125. FERC declared that Part 4.A of Article II, which establishes the effective date as the date of a Commission order disposing of the issues, could reasonably be construed as referring to an order on rehearing because effectiveness and imposition of a remedy before final disposition would be interlocutory and would not 'dispose of' the issues if the order is subject to change. Id. at 61,309. FERC deemed Panhandle's reliance on Paragraph E misplaced because that provision did not set an effective date, and the agency accordingly rejected Panhandle's attempt to invoke Paragraph E to trigger application of Electrical District. Id. 97 Denying further rehearing, the agency rejected the argument that it had modified the date without request by any party on the grounds that it has the power to modify its orders sua sponte. 42 F.E.R.C. p 61,038, at 61,242 (1988). The Commission also summarily disposed of one petitioner's claim that FERC only had the statutory authority to prescribe as an effective date the issuance date of an order approving a utility's compliance filing (i.e., December 31, 1987). Id.