Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 22, 122 S.Ct. 1012 (internal quotation marks omitted). As long as the Commission’s activity falls within one of these specific jurisdictional grants, the “prefatory language of section 201(a)” does “not undermine FERC’s jurisdiction.” Id. at 22, 122 S.Ct. 1012. And the authority that Section 201(b) affords to the Commission has expanded over time because transmissions on the interconnected grids that have now developed “constitute transmissions in interstate commerce.” Id. at 7, 16, 122 S.Ct. 1012. Taken together, these points support the Commission’s assertion of authority over transmission planning matters in the challenged orders, notwithstanding petitioners’ contention that the orders intrude on the States’ authority. First, beca 5 U.S. 295, 299, 73 S.Ct. 706, 97 L.Ed. 1020 (1953) (<HOLDING>). Given that fit, New York v. FERC teaches that 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that  the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce (B) holding that transmission of photographs by means of the internet  constitutes transportation in interstate commerce (C) recognizing that federal authority under the fpa extends to the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and that fpa section 206 is among those provisions that grant authority in connection with such interstate transmission opera tions (D) holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce (E) holding that transmission of photographs by means of the internet is tantamount to moving photographs across state lines and thus constitutes transportation in interstate commerce
Output (English): holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce