Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued December 12, 2006 Decided May 29, 2007
No. 05-1382
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCERS ,
PETITIONER
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
RESPONDENT
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
James H. Holt argued the cause for petitioner Canadian
Association of Petroleum Producers. With him on the briefs
was Jill M. Barker.
Lona T. Perry, Attorney, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the
brief were R. Hewitt Pate, Assistant Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice, John J. Powers, III, and Robert J.
Wiggers, Attorneys, John S. Moot, General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, and Robert H. Solomon,
Solicitor. Robert B. Nicholson, Attorney, U.S. Department of
Justice, entered an appearance.
Before: SENTELLE , GRIFFITH and KAVANAUGH , Circuit
Judges.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
P ER CURIAM: The Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers (“CAPP”) has petitioned for review of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission’s Policy Statement on Income
Tax Allowances. Policy Statement on Income Tax Allowances,
111 FERC ¶ 61,139 (2005). Petitioners assert that the Policy
Statement is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to our
decision in BP West Coast Products, LLC v. FERC, 374 F.3d
1263 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Petitioners have brought a facial challenge to the Policy
Statement. They do not seek review of FERC’s income tax
allowance policy as applied to any individual pipeline’s rates.
The Commission argues that the petition should be dismissed on
either standing or ripeness grounds. Since the Policy Statement
does not grant an income tax allowance to any specific pipeline,
the Commission argues that petitioners have not suffered Article
III injury-in-fact as a result of the promulgation of the statement.
Along similar lines, the Commission contends that the Policy
Statement is not ripe for review because the statement, standing
alone, will not have an “immediate and significant” impact on
any party to this case.
We acknowledge that CAPP’s facial challenge to the Policy
Statement raises substantial issues of both standing and ripeness.
We need not address these threshold issues, however, because
we have resolved the merits arguments raised by CAPP in our
decision in the related case of ExxonMobil v. FERC, No. 04-
1102, et al. (May 29, 2007). We thus dismiss CAPP’s petition
for review as moot in light of our subsequent holding.
So ordered.

-- 2 of 2 --