FERC Decision to Not Investigate Is Not Reviewable by Court

intervenors were on the brief for respondents. energy regulatory commission and upon the briefs submitted by * this case was considered upon the record from the federal had transferred authority over oil pipelines from the interstate involving oil pipelines in new mexico; intervenors the unreviewable "[1] at least as long as the agency complies with second is inapplicable because the commission did not laws ... as they existed on october 1, 1977." act of oct. 17, transportation of oil by pipeline would be subject to "[t]he appearance. iii. conclusion opinion for the court filed by circuit judge ginsburg. that in a case of this sort ica � 15(7) "precludes judicial did so in their opening briefs. in their reply brief the ii. analysis a derivative of � 15(7), "not judicially reviewable"). commission's jurisdiction."), and reh'g denied, 123 ferc � in exxon pipeline we said a decision of the commission before: ginsburg and kavanaugh, circuit judges, and 2 on petition for review of orders secure commission validation of western's exercise of ginsburg, circuit judge: resolute natural resources 61,210 at �� 13, 14 (mar. 7, 2008) ("resolute and the navajo company in support of respondent. ica � 15(7); frontier pipeline co. v. ferc, 452 f.3d 774, inapplicable here because under � 15(7) the commission has orders now under review, the commission denied the motions support of petitioners. pamela j. anderson entered an regulatory commission declining to investigate allegedly way oversteps the bounds of its authority." 725 f.2d at 1470 commission's showing that its decision not to investigate a briefs for petitioners resolute natural resources company for the foregoing reason, the petition for review is 4 by pipeline or the valuation of that pipeline that were vested howard eliot shapiro was on the brief for intervenors the review. the commission's decision not to investigate is resolute natural resources company and resolute therefore not reviewable." exxonmobil oil corp. v. ferc, and citations deleted); accord mo. pub. serv. comm'n v. counsel, federal energy regulatory commission, robert h. reviewable by a court.* solomon, solicitor, and beth g. pacella, senior attorney, speculative[,] ... unsupported ... [and] beyond the aneth, llc, energy reorganization act, pub. l. no. 95-91, � 402(b), 91 no "obligation to give a reason" except when it suspends a rate, which it did not do in this case. see ica � 15(7). the 776 (d.c. cir. 2006). in 1978, one year after the congress western filed two tariffs with the ferc in order to john j. powers iii and robert j. wiggers, attorneys, oil to northwestern new mexico from west texas and stat. 565, 584, it repealed much of the ica but provided that is08-131-000 and is08-131-001 (feb. 25, 2008). in the against this body of precedent, we instructed the parties or an officer or component of the interstate commerce seaboard allied milling corp., 442 u.s. 444, 454 (1979) co. and resolute aneth, llc (collectively "resolute") on october 1, 1977, in the interstate commerce commission parties. see fed. r. app. p. 34(a)(2); d.c. cir. r. 34(j). discriminating against third parties such as resolute who [sic] within the discretion of the commission. 61,271 (june 19, 2008). intervene and to protest the tariffs, alleging "western is 15(7) in force in 1977, which was reprinted most recently in respondents navajo nation and navajo nation oil and gas company in united states court of appeals petition for review of certain orders of the federal energy the petitioners nor the intervenors in support of the petitioners commission has the duties and powers related to the have seen, the decision whether to initiate an investigation is its statutory obligation to give a reason and [2] in no other whether to suspend a rate pending an investigation is initiate an investigation into western's proposed rates; as we 3 resolute, protest and motion to intervene, ferc docket nos. come within two possible exceptions to the rule, but it is the no. 08-1268 were on the brief for intervenor western refining pipeline not made a valid transportation request to western for to address reviewability in their briefs. nonetheless, neither for the district of columbia circuit nov. 13, 2007); arctic slope reg'l corp. v. ferc, 832 f.2d petition. we dismiss the petition for review because the ferc, no. 07-1304, 2007 u.s. app. lexis 26581 (d.c. cir. (d.c. cir. 1984). accordingly, we apply the version of � exxon pipeline co. v. united states, 725 f.2d 1467, 1468 n.1 market power by illegally preferring its affiliates and sheila slocum hollis and blaine yamagata were on the we have held repeatedly -- and in no uncertain terms -- states of america, (decision not to investigate protested rate filing under � 15(8), work of a moment to see that neither applies here. 000 and is08-131-001. resolute and the navajo moved to establishment of a rate or charge for the transportation of oil (internal footnote deleted). the first possible exception is federal energy regulatory commission and united commission's decision not to open an investigation is not the appendix to title 49 of the 1988 version of the u.s. code. silberman, senior circuit judge. v. navajo nation and the navajo nation oil and gas co. u.s. department of justice, thomas r. sheets, general commerce commission to the ferc, see department of lowery barfield, steven h. brose, and daniel j. poynor western, they do not intend to ship on western, and they have dismissed. of the federal energy regulatory commission attempting to use the tariff it filed on february 8, 2008 to anticompetitive conduct by western refining pipeline co. 1978, pub. l. no. 95-473, � 4(c), 92 stat. 1337, 1470; see 49 petitioners derives from � 15(7) of the interstate commerce act. see new rate is, as a rule, unreviewable. instead they claim to 158, 164�65 (d.c. cir. 1987); see also so. ry. co. v. u.s.c. � 60502 ("the federal energy regulatory petitioners, with good reason, do not dispute the decided february 26, 2010 protestors lack standing because they are not shippers on (collectively "the navajo") bring substantially the same and subsequent petitions for rehearing. see 122 ferc � shipments." their allegations of anticompetitive conduct "are 5 southeastern new mexico. see ferc docket nos. is08-131- "overstep the bounds of its authority" when it refused to seek access to competitive markets for their crude oil." commission"); see also frontier pipeline, 452 f.3d at 776; 219 fed. appx. 3 (d.c. cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks establish service and set rates for the transportation of crude the commission's authority to investigate a new rate navajo nation, et al., i. background and resolute aneth, llc.