Mobil Alaska Pipeline Company v. United States Exxon Pipeline Company v. United States Bp Pipeline, Inc v. United States Arco Pipe Line Company v. United States
| Decision Date | 14 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-452,No.A-319,No.77-457,A-376,No.A-280,No.77-551,No.A-278,No.77-602,77-452,77-457,77-551,77-602,A-278,A-280,A-319 |
| Citation | 54 L.Ed.2d 309,434 U.S. 949,98 S.Ct. 475 |
| Parties | MOBIL ALASKA PIPELINE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES et al.; EXXON PIPELINE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES et al.; BP PIPELINE, INC. v. UNITED STATES et al.; ARCO PIPE LINE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES et al No.and |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
and
On petition for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
On October 20, 1977, this Court stayed the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission served June 28 1977, in its Investigation and Suspension Docket No. 9164, Trans Alaska Pipeline System (Rate Filings), pending final disposition of the petitions for writ of certiorari by this Court. To further effectuate that order, it is hereby ordered:
1. During the period the stay is in effect, commencing at 3 p. m., e.d.t., October 20, 1977, the following pipeline companies may collect their respective rates set forth in the tariffs that were suspended by the Interstate Commerce Commission in its order of June 28, 1977:
Amerada Hess Pipeline Corporation
Arco Pipe Line Company
BP Pipelines, Inc.
Mobil Alaska Pipeline Company
Sohio Pipe Line Company
Exxon Pipeline Company
2. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may proceed with its investigation of the rates set forth in said tariffs (FERC Docket No. OR78-1) and in connection with that investigation may enter any appropriate orders not inconsistent with either this order or this Court's order of October 20, 1977.
3. During the period the stay is in effect, the pipeline companies shall keep account of all sums collected under the terms of said tariffs by virtue of the stay entered by this Court.
4. In the event certiorari is denied or it is otherwise ultimately determined that said pipeline companies were not lawfully entitled to collect a portion of the rates so collected, the pipeline companies shall refund such portion of said rates, with interest computed in accordance with Section 15(8)(e) of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, 90 Stat. 38, 49 U.S.C.A § 15(8)(e) (Supp. 1977), to the persons entitled thereto without further order of this Court.
Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice POWELL took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.
I initially joined in granting a stay in these cases. Upon further consideration, however, I am convinced that our stay was improvidently and precipitately issued and that it should now be dissolved.
Applicants will be able to collect approximately $1.5 million per day by virtue of our stay that would not be collected were the suspension order of the Interstate Commerce Commission—which is the subject of petitions for certiorari in this case 1—to remain in effect. Because of the enormous sums of money that will be collected under our stay, over $100 million by January 28, 1978, when the suspension order of the ICC ends by its terms, the Court should be very clear before continuing this stay that it is really needed to protect applicants and, more importantly, that the provisions of the stay adequately protect the interests of anyone who may be affected by this litigation. On the pleadings so far before us, I am not convinced that the Court is in a position to act with any such conviction.
First, with respect to the need for the stay, it is important to recognize that each applicant comes before this Court in a dual capacity: Each is both a part owner of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System and a shipper of oil over the pipeline. Therefore some amounts which an applicant would be prevented from collecting under the suspension order would immediately be recouped as extra profit to that applicant in its capacity as a shipper. This is not to suggest that the gains would offset the losses with any precision, but only that the net losses may be sufficiently small that extraordinary equitable relief would not be appropriate.
My greater concern, however, is that the form of our stay may not adequately protect the ultimate consumers of oil shipped over the pipeline or the interests of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. Barlow Inc
... ... v. United States, 397 U.S. 72, 74, 77, 90 S.Ct. 774, 775, ... any complaint had been received about his company. The inspector answered no, but that Barlow's ... ...
-
In re Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases
...for a stay, 434 U.S. 913, 98 S.Ct. 383, 54 L.Ed.2d 271, and we issued a supplemental stay order on November 14, 1977. 434 U.S. 949, 98 S.Ct. 475, 54 L.Ed.2d 309. Thereafter we granted certiorari to consider the three issues decided by the Court of Appeals. 434 U.S. 964, 98 S.Ct. 501, 54 L.E......
-
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., a Div. of Tenneco, Inc. v. F.E.R.C., 83-1925
...condition that the monies collected by the pipeline company remain subject to refund. See, e.g., Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 949, 98 S.Ct. 475, 54 L.Ed.2d 309 (1977). ...