Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Federal Power Commission
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
506 F.2d 33 (1974)
Relevant factsFree
Amid natural-gas shortages, the FPC (defendant) issued Order No. 467, labeled a "Statement of Policy," expressing its views on how suppliers should prioritize deliveries during curtailments; PG&E and other pipeline customers (plaintiffs) who stood to be adversely affected by the prioritization sued, arguing Order No. 467 was actually a substantive rule that should have gone through the APA's notice-and-comment process before adoption.
IssueFree
Whether, for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act, a policy that has the force of law will be treated as a rule subject to notice-and-comment requirements.
Related cases
Center for Auto Safety v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration452 F.3d 798 (D.C. Cir. 2006)Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. United States Department of Labor174 F.3d 206 (1999)Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security653 F.3d 1 (2011)Syncor International Corp. v. Shalala127 F.3d 90 (1997)Community Nutrition Institute v. Young818 F.2d 943 (D.C. Cir. 1987)