Authors lost their case. The bright line is preserved.
Unfortunately, PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY did not caution its readers that a recent article ("Gas Pipelines and the Hinshaw Amendment: Conflicts Loom as the 'Bright Line' Fades Between Federal and State Jurisdiction," April 1, 1997, p. 36) is actually a thinly disguised brief for claims that a series of tribunals has rejected, including the U.S. Supreme Court. A warning from the editors would have saved valuable time for readers searching for more substantive coverage of the utility industry.
The authors claim that a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia interpreting the Hinshaw Amendment (em Altamont Gas Transmission Company v. FERC, 92 F.3d 1239 (1996) (em threatens to upset the current federal-state scheme of regulation under the Natural Gas Act and to erode the Act's protections of interstate shippers. The authors of these claims are the very attorneys that represented one of the losing parties in the Altamont case. They presented basically the same claims in their petition for rehearing and suggestion for en banc of the Altamont decision. Both the panel and the full court denied the rehearing. The authors also presented these claims in their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court has just denied the petition, thus indicating that the court does not share the authors' misgivings about the Altamont decision.