Opinion ID: 703151
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unforeseeability

Text: 33 Petitioners' initial challenge to FERC's decision to replace the gravity methodology with the assay methodology is premised on the assumption that the proponents of change bore the burden of proving not only changes in circumstances, but also that the changes were unforeseen or not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the prior Commission decision. Brief for Petitioners at 10. While they concede that there has been an increase in the amount of NGLs injected into the common stream since FERC approved the gravity methodology in 1984, they claim that the record is devoid of evidence that this increase was not foreseeable and, as a consequence, that the Commission erred as a matter of law in approving the change. 34 Petitioners' premise misstates the law. The ICA requires that all rates charged be just and reasonable, 49 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1(5), and empowers FERC to prescribe just and reasonable rates or charges when it determines that any rate or practice of a carrier is unjust or unreasonable, 49 U.S.C.App. Sec. 15(1), without regard to foreseeability. FERC has a continuing obligation to ensure that pipeline rates are just and reasonable.... The fact that a rate was once found reasonable does not preclude a finding of unreasonableness in a subsequent proceeding. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. FERC, 893 F.2d 767, 774 (5th Cir.1990); see also Norfolk & Western Ry. v. United States, 768 F.2d 373, 378 (D.C.Cir.1985) (rate orders are generally not res judicata because every rate order made may be superseded by another) (emphasis in original, internal quotation marks omitted). Petitioners refer to cases in which the Commission has cited knowledge of future conditions as a factor where it has refused to modify a carrier's terms of service, see, e.g., Trailblazer Pipeline Co., 50 F.E.R.C. p 61,188 at 61,608 (1990), but these decisions in no way suggest that a finding of unforeseeability is required before the Commission may reach the conclusion that a rate that was previously just and reasonable is no longer so. 35