Cases

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued February 7, 2025 Decided January 23, 2026 No. 23-1348 PETRO STAR INC., PETITIONER v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ET AL., INTERVENORS Consol

SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judge: The Trans Alaska Pipeline System is the sole means of transporting oil from Alaska’s North Slope to the shipping terminal at Valdez, Alaska, roughly 800 miles to the south. Oil companies deposit crude oñ ex *99 tracted from their fields on the North Slope into the pipeline

JUDGMENT This case was considered on the record from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and on the briefs and arguments of the parties. It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petitions are denied. This case is the fourth in a series relating to FERC’s regulation of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). See OXY USA, Inc. v. FERC, 64 F.3d 679 (D.C.Cir.1995); Exxon Co. v. FERC, 182 F.3d

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge RANDOLPH. RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge: The Trans Alaska Pipeline System stretches 800 miles across the Alaskan wilderness from the vast North Slope oil field to the all-weather port of Valdez on the southern coast of the State. Built by a consortium of oil companies and opened in 1977, the pipeline currently trans

17‐3770‐ag In re N.Y. State Dep’t of Envtl. Conserv. v. FERC In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit ________ AUGUST TERM 2017 No. 17‐3770‐ag NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, Petitioner,

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued April 30, 1999 Decided July 13, 1999 No. 95-1520 Exxon Company, U.S.A., Petitioner v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, et al., Respondents Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company, et al.,

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BUCKLEY. BUCKLEY, Circuit Judge: The Trans Alaska Pipeline System (“TAPS”) provides the sole means of shipping petroleum produced from the North Slope of Alaska south to the Port of Valdez, Alaska. Because there are multiple shippers and only a single pipeline, TAPS commingles the various shippers’ petroleum. Necessity dictates that TAPS return to shippers a po

64 F.3d 679 314 U.S.App.D.C. 175, Util. L. Rep. P 14,063 OXY USA, INC., Petitioner,v.FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent,Amerada Hess Pipeline Corporation, BP Pipelines (Alaska)Inc., Exxon Pipeline Company, Mobil Alaska Pipeline Company,Phillips Alaska Pipeline Corporation, Unocal PipelineCompany, State of Alaska, ARCO Alaska, Inc., ARCOTransportation, Alaska, Inc., MAPCO Alaska

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge: *452The questions presented are: (1) whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") correctly determined that petitioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("the Department") waived its authority to review the request of Intervenor Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C. ("Millenniu

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This case was considered on the record from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and on the briefs and arguments by counsel. It is ORDERED that the petitions challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission orders be denied. Appellants challenge several orders of the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (“FERC”) approving tari

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SENTELLE. SENTELLE, Circuit Judge: Exxon Company, U.S.A. and Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC” or “Commission”) order revising the valuation methodology for specified grades of petroleum products after our partial remand of the Commission’s e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ___________________________________ ) MARY M. GIORDANO RUPPERT, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) Case No. 20-cv-3725 (CKK) KILOLO KIJAKAZI,1 ) Acting Commissioner of ) the Social Security Administration, )

178 P.3d 1159 (2008) REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA, State of Alaska, and Indicated Taps Carriers, Petitioners/Cross-Respondents, v. TESORO ALASKA COMPANY and Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc., Respondents/Cross-Petitioners. Nos. S-12352, S-12391. Supreme Court of Alaska. March 21, 2008. *1161 Charles E. Cole, Law Offices of Charl

176 P.3d 667 (2008) AMERADA HESS PIPELINE CORPORATION, BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, Koch Alaska Pipeline Company, LLC, Mobil Alaska Pipeline Company, and Unocal Pipeline Company, Appellants, v. REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA, Tesoro Alaska Company, and Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc., Appellees. No. S-12230. Supreme Court of Alask

47 S.W.3d 1 (2000) COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS COMPANY, Appellant, v. HUNT ENERGY CORPORATION, et al., Appellees. No. 07-98-0090-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo. June 27, 2000. Opinion Overruling Rehearing August 14, 2000. *3 Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P., Lori Meghan Gallagher, Houston, Carr, Hunt & Joy, D

NO. 07-98-0090-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL D JUNE 27, 2000 ______________________________ COLORADO INTERSTA

JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE A pipeline operator challenges a local ordinance prohibiting loading crude oil onto tankers and new structures for that purpose on the grounds that it is preempted under numerous federal and state laws, that it violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, that it violates the business's civil rights, its due process rights, its right to avoid improper delegation,

ACCEPTED 05-17-01421-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 1/30/2018 5:10 PM