Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a petition by Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) for review of orders issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pertaining to natural gas delivery capacity rights at the SoCal/Topock delivery point on the Arizona-California border. The court asserts jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 717r(b) and ultimately denies the petitions. The core issue revolves around SoCal Gas's contention that FERC's orders infringe upon its contractual delivery rights. However, the court finds that Texas law, which governs the relevant contract, does not support SoCal Gas's claimed rights. The original transport service agreement from 1970 was amended in 1990 and 1992, altering the terms to permit delivery in the aggregate across all Topock points, thus negating any specific delivery right at the SoCal/Topock point. In interpreting the contract, the court adheres to the principle that language is given its plain meaning unless ambiguity is demonstrated, which SoCal Gas fails to establish. Consequently, all pending motions are denied, and the petitions for review are dismissed. The decision is not designated for publication and is subject to citation limitations under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, with the court's conclusion standing firm irrespective of the review standard applied.
Legal Issues Addressed
Amendment of Contractual Rightssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The amendments to the transport service agreement altered the original delivery rights, negating the specific delivery right claimed by SoCal Gas.
Reasoning: Amendments in 1990 and 1992 changed the terms to allow delivery 'in the aggregate' across all Topock delivery points, negating the specific delivery right.
Dismissal of Petitions for Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Petitions for review are dismissed due to the lack of merit in SoCal Gas's arguments regarding contractual delivery rights.
Reasoning: Consequently, all pending motions are denied, and the petitions for review are dismissed.
Interpretation of Contractual Rights under Texas Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Texas law requires contractual language to be interpreted based on its plain meaning unless ambiguity is present, which was not found in this case.
Reasoning: Under Texas law, contract language is interpreted based on its plain meaning unless ambiguity exists, which the court finds is not the case here.
Jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 717r(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court exercises jurisdiction to review FERC orders concerning natural gas delivery capacity rights.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 717r(b) and denies the petitions.