INGAA’s filing of a “Petition for Clarification” with FERC while its petition for review was pending in this Court does not render the petition for review premature under this Court’s holdings in either Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 9 F.3d 980, 981 (D.C. Cir. 1993) or BellSouth v. FCC, 17 F.3d 1487, 1489-90 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The fact that INGAA sought only clarification, as opposed to rehearing, on two matters before FERC means that it did not, and does not, intend to pursue the FERC’s disposition of those matters on judicial review. Because its petition for review involves separate issues, INGAA, unlike the litigants in Tennessee and BellSouth, is not in the position of simultaneously seeking relief from this Court and FERC, and accordingly its petition should not be dismissed.
Related
Exploring Real-Life Challenges with Ensuring Natural Gas Availability for Power and Joint Industry Suggested Mitigation Strategies INGAA Comments on FERC NOPR on Cybersecurity Incentives for Electric Utilities INGAA Incident Reporting Comments INGAA API Petition for Consideration of Gas Transmission Final Rule
