⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fifth Circuit hears Matterhorn Express Pipeline's challenge to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Matterhorn operates a natural gas pipeline within Texas. It also provides interstate transportation under section three eleven of the Natural Gas Policy Act. For that service, it chose a regulatory route allowing it to rely on rates already approved by the Railroad Commission of Texas. The federal commission accepted Matterhorn's operating conditions, but directed the company to change its rates. The disagreement concerns how the charges are designed, not simply whether the total price is too high. Matterhorn proposed a one-part transportation rate. The commission instead required a method called straight fixed variable, which separates recovery of fixed costs from charges for variable costs. It also rejected a minimum rate of zero because it found that Matterhorn had variable operating costs. Matterhorn sought reconsideration, but the commission maintained those requirements. The company now asks the court to set the orders aside. That history explains the repeated references to B one and B two. B one is the state-rate election Matterhorn chose; B two is a separate route for obtaining federal rate approval. Matterhorn will argue that the commission's own regulations limit review of its state-approved rate, and that imposing this design requirement departs from past practice without proper notice. The commission will answer that accepting the state's cost findings does not require accepting every rate design, and that uniform treatment protects competition with other pipelines. Listen for the distinction between the level of a rate and its structure, and for whether the commission's explanation fits both its written regulations and its treatment of other pipelines.

Matterhorn Express Pipeline, LLC v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (No. 25-60487) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued November 3, 2026.