Opinion ID: 527537
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Minimum Bill Provisions

Text: 118 The foregoing analysis indicates that FERC's determination concerning the effective date for elimination of the minimum bill provisions must be upheld. Opinion No. 265 did not identify this date. In Opinion No. 265-A, however, the Commission made clear that this elimination would take effect upon the date this order on rehearing issues (i.e., August 19). 40 F.E.R.C. at 61,601. In its November 4 order, FERC reaffirmed its ruling in Opinion No. 265-A, id. at 61,599, that an order disposing of [the] issues meant an order on rehearing because effectiveness and imposition of a remedy before final disposition would be interlocutory and would not 'dispose of' the issues. 41 F.E.R.C. at 61,309. 119 MichCon and East Ohio challenge this conclusion based on their textual analysis of the contract (discussed above at 38-39, 43-44), and reiterate the arguments they advanced below. For example, these companies assert that 18 C.F.R. Sec. 385.2007(c)(1) made the Commission's order in Opinion No. 265 final and fully effective on the date of issuance (i.e., February 20) because FERC did not direct otherwise; thus, it was not interlocutory pending rehearing. They further contend that filing requests for rehearing did not stay the order under the NGA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 717r(c). They also emphasize that as minimum bills are anticompetitive, unjust, and unreasonable, the Commission should eliminate them at the earliest possible time to avoid saddling customers with demonstrably unfair costs. 120 While MichCon and East Ohio's last point has some force as a policy matter, the Agreement alone determines the effective date of FERC's orders. Although these companies have raised plausible arguments in favor of a February effective date, they have failed to show that the Commission's interpretation of the contract was unreasonable and unsupported, and we must defer to the agency's construction. Tarpon, 860 F.2d at 441-42. As FERC's opinions adequately addressed these petitioners' other contentions based on alleged violations of statutory and regulatory provisions, we affirm its decision on the effective date issue.