Research checked 27 September 2026 · Official docket
The competing views
What the available sources tell us about the request and the decision being challenged:
Matterhorn says the regulator imposed new pricing requirements without properly changing its rules and treated comparable pipelines differently.
The regulator rejected Matterhorn's proposed rates. The reviewed filing explains Matterhorn's objections, but does not establish the regulator's full answer to its comparisons with other pipelines.
Based on the court’s case description and the filings identified below. Where a side’s detailed argument is unavailable, we explain the earlier ruling and say what is missing. Allegations are not findings of fact.
Procedural history
- 2026-11-03
Scheduled court event; consult the official calendar for changes
Research & materials
Official case docket (opens in new tab)Questions presented (opens in new tab)Reviewed the official PACER docket and available readable excerpts from principal briefs (party arguments, not judicial findings). This is an initial research review, not a full record analysis. Attachment-only and unreadable scanned downloads are recorded as gaps. Court links open official materials; scheduled arguments are not transcripts.
Case updates
Appellate research published
Matterhorn challenges FERC pipeline-rate requirements through direct agency review. The district-court affirmance target is unsuitable.
Update source (opens in new tab)