Opinion ID: 362301
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fitness for Judicial Decision

Text: 74
75 The Northwest-Pan-Alberta contracts provides that the seller, Pan-Alberta, may terminate the contracts prior to commencement of construction of new facilities if Northwest resells the imported gas to any purchaser not participating in the construction of the Alaska portion of the ANGTS. 82 An intervenor contended that this resale restriction is an illegal restraint of trade under section 1 of the Sherman Act, and that it violates section 13(a) of the ANGTA by preventing transporters of natural gas from full access to the ANGTS on the basis of ownership of the system. Although that intervenor later withdrew its complaint, the Commission chose to address the charge. Relying partly on the assumption that the resale provision is required by a Canadian governmental or provincial policy, the Commission found that the provision does not violate either the Sherman Act or the ANGTA. 83 The issue now facing the Court is whether such a Canadian policy exists a purely factual question that does not lend itself as readily to prompt judicial review as a purely legal question. 84 76 Moreover, the FERC's decision does not preclude a subsequent submission of evidence negating the assumed fact. On the contrary, the Commission freely admitted that it is willing to reconsider the antitrust implications of the contracts, and presumably the ANGTA determination as well, should Canadian policy, if any, differ from the FERC's assumption. 85 The existence of a Canadian policy requiring the contracts' resale restriction is in fact a condition, the failure of which may prompt the Commission to modify or abandon its present position on the validity of the resale restriction 86 and to reexamine its findings under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. 87 We therefore conclude that the decisions on the resale restriction do not represent the Commission's final position, and judicial review at this time would be premature.
77 The Commission reviewed Northwest's import applications under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. Northwest lacked all of the required exhibits 88 when it submitted its applications, and under different circumstances, the Commission might have waited until all the information was before it. Congress requires expedited consideration of all applications related to the ANGTS, however, 89 so that the Commission considered the import proposals immediately. The result is the finding under the Natural Gas Act that conditional authorization of the imports is not inconsistent with the public interest 90 because the desirability of importing Alberta gas is clear 91 and importing the gas through pre-built portions of the ANGTS will help expedite completion of the entire transportation system. Conditional authorization, according to the Commission, encompasses no ruling on any matters related to the import authorization applications other than the basic question of whether In general such imports are in the public interest. 92 78 The Commission has reserved for future consideration or reconsideration several questions related to the section 3 authorization of the imports, including its antitrust determination that is intimately involved with the section 3 public interest determination. 93 The Commission also has reserved consideration of Northwest's application under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 94 and certification under section 7 normally is necessary before final approval of an import authorization. 95 Despite these open questions, however, the Commission has made its public interest determination. 79 This action is final. There is no hint that the ruling is tentative, and the FERC is unlikely to reconsider its decision before it completes the necessary future proceedings under the Natural Gas Act. 96 In addition, the issue facing the Court involves the purely legal question whether the FERC exceeded its statutory authority in making a general finding that imports are in the public interest without completing proceedings under section 3 or section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. The issue also requires an analysis of the factual basis for the public interest determination, but these facts will not necessarily become more concrete with time. 80 Whether an issue is fit for judicial review does not depend on finality alone, 97 and in this instance, we find that the factors supporting judicial resolution are outweighed by other considerations. Because so many questions are still undecided, and several other issues are open to reexamination by the FERC, it is wiser and more efficient to allow the Commission to continue its decision-making process at least until it grants final authorization, if any, for Northwest's import application. Exhaustion of this administrative process will refine and focus the factual basis upon which both the public interest determination and the overall authorization rest, and will avoid a multiplicity of suits challenging conditional, tentative Commission decisions. If, after final authorization, the challengers claim competitive injury or violation of rights, judicial review will be available, and this Court at that juncture will be better able to analyze the legal and factual questions presented. 98 We therefore conclude that the public interest determination, although final, is not fit for judicial review, and we will withhold consideration unless we find, under the second prong of the Abbott Laboratories test, that such action will harm the challengers.
81 The Commission declined to recognize that existing Canadian gas importers have priority over importers like Northwest that intend to use ANGTS facilities. The basis for this action was the finding that the needs of the existing importers and those of Northwest Currently are not competitive. 99 Although at first blush, both of these actions appear definitive, we need only point to the Commission's own assertion that its conditional authorization constitutes no ruling on, and therefore reserves for possible further deliberation, all matters relating to the import applications except the question whether in general the imports are in the public interest. 100 The finding of no competition, and the failure to declare priorities for extension and renewal of existing contracts, are therefore tentative actions, and we have a great interest in postponing judicial review until these issues arise in a more concrete and final form.
82 The Commission decided not to hold hearings before issuing its conditional authorization order, and when the challengers petitioned for clarification or rehearing of that order, the Commission denied their requests. The challengers now claim that this denial violated their constitutional and statutory rights on two grounds: (1) competitive hearings were required under the Ashbacker doctrine, 101 and (2) section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, under which the FERC issued the order, requires a hearing before an application for importation of natural gas may be conditionally authorized. Upon close examination of these two grounds, we find that the challengers' claim under the Ashbacker doctrine is unfit for immediate judicial review, but the claim under the Natural Gas Act is reviewable. 83 In Ashbacker Radio v. FCC, 102 the Supreme Court held that 84 where two Bona fide applications are mutually exclusive the grant of one without a hearing to both deprives the loser of the opportunity which Congress chose to give him. 103 85 We do not reach the issue of mutual exclusivity at this time because the FERC has not made a final decision on Northwest's import applications, nor has it foreclosed the possibility of future hearings on the issue of competition or mutual exclusivity between Northwest and the challengers. Therefore, the Ashbacker doctrine is not yet applicable to this case. 104 Of course, our present decision will not preclude judicial review if a future decision by the Commission should foreclose an effective competitive hearing. 105 At the present time, however, the Commission's decision not to hold hearings is not sufficiently final to warrant review under Ashbacker. 86 The challengers' claim under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act is on a different footing. Here the Commission has made a final determination, without hearings, that imports from Alberta generally are in the public interest, and it has already declined to reopen the matters. Moreover, the issue facing the Court involves a purely legal question: whether the Commission exceeded its statutory authority under section 3 by failing to hold hearings before finding that natural gas imports from Alberta generally are in the public interest. This issue is therefore reviewable, and because we have no interest in postponing consideration, we need not move to the second prong of the Abbott Laboratories test to determine whether the challengers would be harmed by such postponement. 87
88 We find that the Commission's decision not to hold hearings prior to authorizing conditionally Northwest's import application under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act is fit for judicial review under the Abbott Laboratories test. The Commission's findings on the validity of the resale restriction in Northwest's contracts, and on the lack of competition between the challengers and Northwest, as well as the failure to hold competitive hearings under the Ashbacker doctrine, are part of a continuing decisionmaking process that has not yet resulted in final decisions. The public interest determination, although final, is unfit for immediate judicial review because of considerations of efficiency, and because further action by the Commission will focus the issues.