ANR Pipeline Co. v. CORPORATION COM'N OF OKLAHOMA
Decision Date | 04 September 1986 |
Docket Number | No. CIV-85-1929-A,CIV-85-1980-A.,CIV-85-1929-A |
Citation | 643 F. Supp. 419 |
Parties | ANR PIPELINE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA, et al., Defendants. NORTHWEST CENTRAL PIPELINE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. The CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
William J. Legg, Andrews Davis Legg Bixler Milsten & Murrah, Oklahoma City, Okl., for ANR Pipeline Co., Colorado Interstate Gas Co., Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., KN Energy, Inc., Mississippi River Transmission Corp., Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., Western Gas Interstate Co.
James M. Gaitis, Oklahoma City, Okl., for El Paso Natural Gas Co.
Lindil C. Fowler, Jr., G. Gail Stricklin, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Oklahoma Corp. Com'n, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Corporation Com'n of the State of Okl., James B. Townsend, Norma Eagleton and Hamp Baker, Commissioners of the Corp. Com'n of the State of Okl.
R. Wilson Montoy, II, Brunini, Gratham, Grover & Hewes, Jackson, Miss., John L. Arlington, Jr. and Curtis M. Long, Huffman, Arlington, Kihle, Gaberino & Dunn, Tulsa, Okl., for Southern Natural Gas Co.
Donald L. Kahl, Kent L. Jones, Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Collingsworth & Nelson, Inc., Tulsa, Okl., for Northwest Cent. Pipeline Corp.
This case is before the Court for consideration of plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment. These actions seek a declaration that OKLA. STAT. ANN. Tit. 52, § 240 (1981) ("Section 240"), and the orders, rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma ("Commission"), are unconstitutional as applied to interstate pipeline purchasers. Plaintiffs allege that these rules and regulations contravene Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States, because they interfere with the regulatory scheme established under the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717 et seq., and the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, 15 U.S.C. § 3301 et seq. Additionally, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Commission and the individual Commissioners from enforcing its Section 240 rules against the interstate pipeline companies.
Plaintiffs specifically attack Commission Rule 1-305 on grounds that the subject matter, as applied to them, is exclusively in the federal province. Rule 1-305 provides:
When Rule 1-305 was promulgated, the Commission referred to Section 240 as its legal basis. Section 240 is a straightforward ratable take provision, which provides:
Essentially the same controversy now before this Court has recently been examined twice by the United States Supreme Court. In Northern Natural Gas Company v. State Corporation Commission, 372 U.S. 84, 83 S.Ct. 646, 9 L.Ed.2d 601 (1963), the Court held unconstitutional on federal supremacy grounds the Kansas attempt to regulate the purchase of Kansas natural gas by interstate pipelines. As in Northern Natural, the defendants here assert that the state's police power interest in conservation of resources and consequent regulation of production obviate the kind of federal interest that would underlie a federal occupation of the field. At issue in Northern Natural were two orders of the Kansas State Corporation Commission, avowedly adopted as conservation measures. The Commission order of October 7, 1959 was superseded by Order number 82-2-219, which provides:
Kansas statute Section 55-703 is:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
ANR Pipeline Co. v. Corporation Com'n of State of Okl.
...Pipelines or any other interstate pipeline company. The decision of the district court is reported as ANR Pipeline Co. v. Corporation Comm'n of Okla., 643 F.Supp. 419 (W.D.Okl.1986). The Commission generally asserts the district court lacked jurisdiction and the pre-emption analysis of the ......
-
CHAPTER 10 THE TAKE-OR-PAY WARS: A CAUTIONARY ANALYSIS FOR THE FUTURE
...commercial impracticability, see 2 E. Farnsworth, Contracts (1990), §§ 9.5 & 9.6. [40] See, ANR Pipeline Co. v. Corporation Commission, 643 F.Supp. 419 (W.D. Okla. 1986), aff'd. 860 F.2d 1571 (10th Cir. 1988), cert denied 109 S. Ct. 1967 (1989). [41] Recent cases include Prospective Inv. & ......
-
CHAPTER 5 STATE NON-UTILITY REGULATION OF NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING
...in order to prevent waste, protect correlative rights, or is otherwise required by the public interest or authorized by law. [91] 643 F. Supp. 419 (W. D. Ok. 1986). [92] Section 240 of Title 52. [93] Section 239 of Title 52. [94] 643 F. Supp. 423-24. What the court misunderstood was that th......
-
CHAPTER 12 STATE NON-UTILITY REGULATION OF NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING
...the Natural Policy Act: A Preliminary Look, 56 Colo. L. Rev. 521 (1985). [32] 106 S. Ct. at 718. [33] See 31 FERC ¶61,043 (1985). [34] 643 F. Supp. 419 (W.D. Okla. 1986). [35] Pierce, supra n. 31. [36] 237 Kan. 248, 699 P.2d 1002 (1985). [37] 106 S. Ct. 1169 (1986). [38] Northwest Central P......