Opinion ID: 165264
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whatcom County's Challenge to FERC's Jurisdiction

Text: 21 FSW alternatively argues that, while it did not raise the issue in its own petition for rehearing, Whatcom County raised it in its motion to dismiss GSX's application, and FERC addressed it in its denial of that motion. Most courts addressing this issue have required the party seeking review of a decision to have sought rehearing itself before the Commission. See Process Gas Consumers Group v. FERC, 912 F.2d 511, 514 (D.C.Cir.1990) ([T]he party seeking review must raise its objections in its own application for rehearing to the Commission.); Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. FERC, 848 F.2d 250, 255 (D.C.Cir.1988) (stating that a court cannot consider an objection not raised by petitioner but argued to FERC by another party to the same proceeding); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. FERC, 824 F.2d 417, 434 (5th Cir.1987) (The plain language of section 19 requires that the very party seeking judicial review must raise its objections in its own petition for rehearing.). We join those courts and hold that FSW cannot bootstrap its way into our court be relying upon the fact that another party argued the issue before the Commission. 22 Furthermore, even were we to permit such bootstrapping by FSW, Whatcom County was obligated by statute to seek rehearing from the Commission of its challenge to FERC's exercise of its regulatory jurisdiction. It did not do so. FSW may not itself fail to preserve an issue, then take advantage of the fact that another party raised the issue but failed to properly pursue it by seeking rehearing, thereby allowing the decision below to effectively become final, and seek now to escape all of those defaults. We lack jurisdiction to consider whether FERC correctly determined that the GSX pipeline was subject to FERC regulation as an interstate pipeline.