United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. McCombs

1979-06-18
Share:

Headline: Producers cannot stop selling interstate gas without federal approval; Court reverses lower court and requires Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval before abandoning dedicated reserves, affecting who may sell newly discovered gas.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Requires producers to obtain Commission approval before abandoning interstate gas service.
  • Prevents selling dedicated gas in intrastate markets without agency permission.
  • Protects pipeline purchase rights tied to federal certificates.
Topics: natural gas regulation, abandonment approval, interstate gas sales, pipeline contracts

Summary

Background

An interstate pipeline company had a long-term contract to buy all marketable natural gas from a 163-acre tract called Butler B. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had issued certificates authorizing those interstate sales and did not limit depths or duration. After production from the shallow well stopped and deliveries ceased for several years, new owners discovered deeper gas and contracted to sell that gas in intrastate commerce to an industrial buyer. The pipeline asserted its purchase rights, the Commission ruled the new sales violated the certificates, and a federal appeals court later set aside the Commission’s order.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a producer may stop serving the interstate market without the Commission’s express permission. The Court held that Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act unambiguously requires prior Commission approval, after a hearing and specific findings, before any abandonment of service. Citing earlier decisions, the Court rejected the appeals court’s “de facto abandonment” approach and explained that allowing producers to abandon by informal lapse or good faith would let them bypass the statutory procedure. The Court also upheld the Commission’s discretion to refuse retroactive approval where the record showed possible continued production.

Real world impact

The decision makes clear that all reserves covered by the certificates remain dedicated to interstate commerce until the Commission authorizes abandonment. Producers, assignees, pipelines, and buyers must rely on the Commission’s process to change market commitments, and interested parties get a chance to be heard before abandonment is permitted. The Court reversed the appeals court and restored the Commission’s authority over abandonments.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases