Process Gas Consumers Group v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Nos. 79-1336

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtBefore MacKINNON, ROBB and WALD; WALD; PER CURIAM; WALD
Citation694 F.2d 728
PartiesThe PROCESS GAS CONSUMERS GROUP et al., Petitioners, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, John R. Block, Secretary of Agriculture, Respondents, United Gas Pipe Line Company et al., Intervenors. UNITED GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Bob Bergland, Secretary of Agriculture, Respondents, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation et al., Intervenors. The PROCESS GAS CONSUMERS GROUP et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY et al., Respondents. The PROCESS GAS CONSUMERS GROUP et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent, American Bakers Association et al., Intervenors. COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent, United Distribution Companies et al., Intervenors. UNITED DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent, Consolidated Gas Supply Corporation, Intervenor. UNITED DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. (Two cases). The BROOKLYN UNION GAS COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent, Public Service Commission of New York, Intervenor. STATE OF LOUISIANA, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. (Two cases). COLUMBIA NITROGEN CORPORATION and Nipro, Inc., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. FIRST MISSISSIPPI CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. (Two cases). ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. (Two cases). CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. (Two cases). UNITED GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. The PROCESS GAS CONSUMERS GROUP, American Industrial Clay Company of Sandersville and Georgia Kaolin Company, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL ENERGY
Decision Date01 October 1982
Docket Number79-2259,79-2361,79-1713,79-2435,79-1511,79-1346,79-1823,Nos. 79-1336,79-2368,79-1727,79-1765,79-1585,79-1557,79-2409,79-2369,79-1610,79-1569,79-2273,79-1699,79-1655,79-1814,79-1534,79-1824 and 79-1825,79-1497,79-1588,79-1581,79-2297,79-2352,79-1617,79-1449,79-2314,79-1815,79-1568,79-1813,79-1635,79-2323

Page 728

694 F.2d 728
224 U.S.App.D.C. 162
The PROCESS GAS CONSUMERS GROUP et al., Petitioners,
v.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, John R. Block, Secretary of
Agriculture, Respondents,
United Gas Pipe Line Company et al., Intervenors.
UNITED GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Bob Bergland, Secretary of
Agriculture, Respondents,
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation et al., Intervenors.
The PROCESS GAS CONSUMERS GROUP et al., Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY et al., Respondents.
The PROCESS GAS CONSUMERS GROUP et al., Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent,
American Bakers Association et al., Intervenors.
COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent,
United Distribution Companies et al., Intervenors.
UNITED DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES, Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent,
Consolidated Gas Supply Corporation, Intervenor.
UNITED DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES, Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. (Two cases).
The BROOKLYN UNION GAS COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent,
Public Service Commission of New York, Intervenor.
STATE OF LOUISIANA, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. (Two cases).
COLUMBIA NITROGEN CORPORATION and Nipro, Inc., Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
FIRST MISSISSIPPI CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. (Two cases).
ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. (Two cases).
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. (Two cases).
UNITED GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
The PROCESS GAS CONSUMERS GROUP, American Industrial Clay
Company of Sandersville and Georgia Kaolin
Company, Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
The FERTILIZER INSTITUTE, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
The BROOKLYN UNION GAS COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
NATIONAL FOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
ELI LILLY & COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY et al., Respondents.
The PROCESS GAS CONSUMERS GROUP, American Industrial Clay
Company of Sandersville and Georgia Kaolin
Company, Petitioners,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Bob Bergland, Secretary of
Agriculture, Respondent,
United Gas Pipe Line Company, et al., Intervenors.
UNITED DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and Bob Bergland,
Secretary of Agriculture, Respondents,
United Gas Pipe Line Company, et al., Intervenors.
UNITED DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES, Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and Bob Bergland,
Sec. of Agriculture, Respondents,
United Gas Pipe Line Company, et al., Intervenors.
UNITED GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and Bob Bergland, Secretary
of Agriculture, Respondents,
Brooklyn Union Gas Company, United Distribution Companies,
Intervenors.
The PROCESS GAS CONSUMERS GROUP, et al., Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent,
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., et al., Intervenors.
UNITED DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
COLUMBIA NITROGEN CORP. and Nipro, Inc., et al., Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent,
Atlanta Gas Light Co., et al., Intervenors.
UNITED DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES, Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent,
United Gas Pipe Line Company, et al., Intervenors.
The PROCESS GAS CONSUMERS GROUP, et al., Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent,
United Distribution Companies, et al., Intervenors.
UNITED GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
Nos. 79-1336, 79-1713, 79-1346, 79-1449, 79-1511, 79-1534,
79-1557, 79-1568, 79-1569, 79-1585, 79-1610, 79-1617,
79-1655, 79-1765, 79-1813, 79-2259, 79-2273, 79-2297,
79-2314, 79-2323, 79-2352, 79-2361, 79-2368, 79-2369,
79-2409, 79-2435, 79-1497, 79-1581, 79-1588, 79-1814,
79-1635, 79-1699, 79-1727, 79-1815, 79-1823, 79-1824 and 79-1825.
United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued June 5, 1980.
Decided July 29, 1981.
As Amended Sept. 29 and Nov. 3, 1981.
Modified on Rehearing En Banc
Oct. 1, 1982.
See 694 F.2d 778.

Page 734

Petitions for Review of Orders of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Petitions for Review of Orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Michael J. Huston, Indianapolis, Ind., with whom Margaret M. Huff, Indianapolis, Ind., and Peter C. Ward, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for Eli Lilly & Co., petitioner in No. 79-2409 and intervenor in Nos. 79-1336, 79-1346, 79-1449, 79-1497, 79-1585, 79-1635, 79-1713, 79-1815, 79-1823 and 79-1824.

Edward J. Grenier, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Richard P. Nolan, Robert W. Clark, III, David A. Gross, William Wewer and William H. Penniman, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for Process Gas Consumers Group, et al., petitioners in Nos. 79-1336, 79-1346, 79-1449, 79-1497, 79-1635, 79-1824 and 79-2259 and intervenors in Nos. 79-1449, 79-1585, 79-1588, 79-1617, 79-1713, 79-1815 and 79-1823.

Edward Gerstenfield, Bethesda, Md., with whom Alfred L. Price, Jackson, Miss., was on the brief, for First Mississippi Corp., petitioner in Nos. 79-1610 and 79-1765 and intervenor in Nos. 79-1346 and 79-1713.

Stephen A. Herman, Washington, D. C., with whom Kevin R. Jones, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for The Fertilizer Institute, petitioner in No. 79-2323, and for The Fertilizer Institute, the American Bakers Assn. and Riceland Foods, intervenors in Nos. 79-1336, 79-1346, 79-1449, 79-1497, 79-1635 and 79-2259.

David B. Robinson, Washington, D. C., with whom James R. Patton, Jr., and Harry E. Barsh, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for State of Louisiana, petitioner in Nos. 79-1569 and 79-2297.

Page 735

Knox Bemis, Washington, D. C., with whom W. DeVier Pierson, Ross Hamachek, Richard A. Yarmey, M. Frazier King, Jr., Terence J. Keeney, Washington, D. C., and Michelle B. Bolton were on the brief, for United Gas Pipe Line Co., petitioner in Nos. 79-1713, 79-1813, 79-1814 and 79-1825 and intervenor in Nos. 79-1336, 79-1346, 79-1497, 79-1581, 79-1585, 79-1588, 79-1823 and 79-1824.

J. Richard Tiano, Washington, D. C., with whom John R. Schaefgen, Jr., Washington, D. C., and C. William Cooper, Falmouth, Mass., were on the brief, for United Distribution Companies, petitioner in Nos. 79-1534, 79-1557, 79-1581, 79-1588, 79-1699, 79-1823 and 79-2368 and intervenor in Nos. 79-1346, 79-1449, 79-1497, 79-1511, 79-1585, 79-1635, 79-1713, 79-1814, 79-1815, 79-1824, 79-2259, 79-2297, 79-2314. George L. Weber, Washington, D. C., and C. William Cooper, Falmouth, Mass., also entered appearances for United Distribution Companies.

John E. Holtzinger, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Paul H. Keck and John T. Stough, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief for Atlanta Gas Light Co., petitioner in Nos. 79-1617 and 79-2435 and intervenor in Nos. 79-1336, 79-1346, 79-1815 and 79-1824.

William I. Harkaway and G. Douglas Essy, Chicago, Ill., were on the brief for Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., petitioner in Nos. 79-1655, 79-1727 and 79-2314 and intervenor in Nos. 79-1346 and 79-1449.

Charles M. Darling, IV, and David T. Douthwaite, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for Allied Chemical Corp., petitioner in No. 79-2273 and intervenor in No. 79-1449.

Fred K. Harvey, Jr., Augusta, Ga., was on the brief for Columbia Nitrogen Corp., et al., petitioner in Nos. 79-1585 and 79-1815 and intervenor in Nos. 79-1336, 79-1346 and 79-1824.

Nicholas W. Fels and Eric A. Eisen, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for Air Products & Chemicals Inc., et al., for petitioner in No. 79-2369 and intervenor in Nos. 79-1336, 79-1346, 79-1449 and 79-1824.

Bruce G. Forrest, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Alice Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Terrence G. Jackson, Atty., Dept. of Agriculture and Arthur S. Weissbrodt, Atty., Dept. of Energy, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for respondents in Nos. 79-1336, 79-1346, 79-1497, 79-1581, 79-1588, 79-1713, 79-1814 and 79-2409.

Robert S. Greenspan and Ronald R. Glancz, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances, for Dept. of Agriculture, et al.

J. Paul Douglas, Asst. Sol., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C., with whom Jerome Nelson, Sol., FERC, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for respondent in Nos. 79-1449, 79-1511, 79-1534, 79-1557, 79-1568, 79-1569, 79-1585, 79-1610, 79-1617, 79-1635, 79-1655, 79-1699, 79-1727, 79-1765, 79-1813, 79-1815, 79-1823, 79-1824, 79-1825, 79-2259, 79-2297, 79-2314, 79-2323, 79-2352, 79-2361, 79-2368, 79-2369 and 79-2435.

Howard E. Shapiro, Atty., FERC, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for respondent, FERC.

Gregory Grady with whom Dale A. Wright, Washington, D. C., Thomas E. Midyett, Jr., Knoxville, Tenn., for East Tennessee Natural Gas Co., et al., intervenor in Nos. 79-1336, 79-1346, 79-1449, 79-1511, 79-1585, 79-1815 and 79-1823.

Edwin H. Pewett, Allan I. Mendelsohn and Michael J. Ruane, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for National Meat Assn.,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Brae Corp. v. U.S., SEA-LAND
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 24, 1984
    ...approving promulgation of general rules, see, e.g., The Process Gas Consumers Group v. United States Department Page 1043 of Agriculture, 694 F.2d 728, 745-46 (D.C.Cir.1981); adopted en banc, 694 F.2d 778, 783 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1982),cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1874, 76 L.Ed.2d 807 (......
  • Associated Gas Distributors v. F.E.R.C., No. 85-1811
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 23, 1987
    ...Gas Co., 463 U.S. 319, 342, 103 S.Ct. 3024, 3037, 77 L.Ed.2d 668 (1983); Process Gas Consumers Group v. United States Dep't of Agric., 694 F.2d 728, 764 (D.C.Cir.1981) (other portions vacated and reconsidered en banc, 694 F.2d 778 (D.C.Cir.1982)), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 905, 103 S.Ct. 1874,......
  • Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America v. Weinberger, RANDOLPH-SHEPPARD
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 30, 1986
    ...is within the ambit of the agency's discretion and supported by the record. Process Gas Consumers Group v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 694 F.2d 728, 740 (D.C.Cir.1981), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 905, 103 S.Ct. 1874, 76 L.Ed.2d 807 (1983); see Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, supra, 401 U......
  • Process Gas Consumers Group v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, No. 79-1336
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • October 1, 1982
    ...granting rehearing en banc is reprinted as an Appendix to this opinion. The panel opinion is reprinted immediately preceding this opinion. 694 F.2d 728 1 Pursuant to the Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub.L. No. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565 (1977) (codified at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7101 et seq.), F......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Brae Corp. v. U.S., SEA-LAND
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 24, 1984
    ...approving promulgation of general rules, see, e.g., The Process Gas Consumers Group v. United States Department Page 1043 of Agriculture, 694 F.2d 728, 745-46 (D.C.Cir.1981); adopted en banc, 694 F.2d 778, 783 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1982),cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1874, 76 L.Ed.2d 807 (......
  • Associated Gas Distributors v. F.E.R.C., No. 85-1811
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 23, 1987
    ...Gas Co., 463 U.S. 319, 342, 103 S.Ct. 3024, 3037, 77 L.Ed.2d 668 (1983); Process Gas Consumers Group v. United States Dep't of Agric., 694 F.2d 728, 764 (D.C.Cir.1981) (other portions vacated and reconsidered en banc, 694 F.2d 778 (D.C.Cir.1982)), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 905, 103 S.Ct. 1874,......
  • Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America v. Weinberger, RANDOLPH-SHEPPARD
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 30, 1986
    ...is within the ambit of the agency's discretion and supported by the record. Process Gas Consumers Group v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 694 F.2d 728, 740 (D.C.Cir.1981), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 905, 103 S.Ct. 1874, 76 L.Ed.2d 807 (1983); see Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, supra, 401 U......
  • Process Gas Consumers Group v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, No. 79-1336
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • October 1, 1982
    ...granting rehearing en banc is reprinted as an Appendix to this opinion. The panel opinion is reprinted immediately preceding this opinion. 694 F.2d 728 1 Pursuant to the Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub.L. No. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565 (1977) (codified at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7101 et seq.), F......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT