Document: 390 U.S. 1 88 S.Ct. 651 19 L.Ed.2d 787 Edward J. HARDIN, as Mayor of Tazewell, Tennessee et al., Petitioners,v.KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY. POWELL VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OPERATIVE, Petitioner, v. KENTUCKY TENNESSEE AUTHORITY, Nos. 40, 50, 51. Argued Dec. 13, 1967. Decided Jan. 16, 1968. Robert H. Marquis, Knoxville, Tenn., and William R. Stanifer, for petitioners. Malcolm Y. Marshall, Louisville, Ky., respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. The question decision in these cases is whether Congress has prohibited Valley Authority from competing sale electricity with respondent, Kentucky Utilities Company, two small villages Claiborne County, Tennessee, a narrow corridor between Tennessee-Kentucky state boundary 16 miles away. By § 15d Act 1933, added by 1959 amendments to that Act, barred TVA expanding its sales outside 'the area which Corporation (TVA) or distributors were primary source power supply on July 1, 1957,'1 our problem therefore one deciding are part an 'area' was crucial date. difficulty lies determining location extent statute refers. In June 1957, supplied 62% used all if entire county within meaning statute, would have been 'primary' power, expansion into be permissible. On other hand, themselves, only 6% while respondent 94%; thus either alone constitute 'area,' not it area. 2 statutory interpretation now before us arose this way. major supplier electric many adjoining areas Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, Kentucky. Respondent, whose service centered Kentucky, long served customers Tazewell New border Tennessee. lines also crisscross able serve number villages, even though predominant power. Because Utilities' retail rates approximately 1/2 times higher typical consumers than power,2 value residential commercial properties substantially uniformly similar This rate disparity created seething discontent among industrial villages. Pointing out they lived very heart watershed immediate proximity TVA's large Norris Lake, citizens contended wholly unjust inequitable deny them benefits advantages cheap After complaints, planning, consultations over period more three years, local governments engaged contractor build facilities necessary establish municipal system linked immediately began discontinue their become system. 3 then filed suit against TVA, mayors Tazewells, Powell Electric Cooperative, distributor, charging conspiracy destroy business asking court enjoin supplying new alleged violation 15d. District Court upheld determination Board Directors Tazewells dismissed case, 237 F.Supp. 502 (1964), but Appeals reversed, holding plus constituted accordingly extending Tazewells. 375 F.2d 403 (1966). We granted certiorari, 386 980, 87 1284, 18 228 (1967), resolve important administration Act. reverse agree properly determined relevant extend beyond include county. area, could make low-cost available including I. 4 Before discussing merits, we shall briefly consider petitioners' contention Company lacks standing challenge legality activities. both courts below without merit. has, true, repeatedly held economic injury results lawful competition cannot, itself, confer injured any aspect competitor's operations. Railroad Co. Ellerman, 105 166, 26 L.Ed. 1015 (1882); Alabama Power Ickes, 302 464, 58 300, 82 374 (1938); 306 118, 59 366, 83 543 (1939); Perkins Lukens Steel Co., 310 113, 60 869, 84 1108 (1940). But competitive provided no basis above-cases simply because constitutional requirements plaintiff sought enforce way concerned protecting injury. contrast, rule, at least since Chicago Junction Case, 264 258, 44 317, 68 667 (1924), when particular provision invoked does reflect legislative purpose protect interest, competitor require compliance provision. See Alton United States, 315 15, 19, 62 432, 435, 86 586 (1942); City Atchison, T. & S.F.R. 357 77, 83, 78 1063, 1066, 1174 (1958). 5 Petitioners concede, course must, purposes limitations private utilities competition. evident itself amply supported history. grew efforts find some meet cost dependence upon annual appropriations Congress. 1955 seek authority issue bonds finance expenditures. Although spokesmen assured objective territorial improvement existing members apprehensive thought congressional budgetary control weakened, substitute prevent should found. A series bills give borrowing failed pass.3 Several introduced combining grant various provisions prohibit expansion,4 eventually enacted 1959. discussions teritorial limitation mentioned policy reasons restriction,5 clear undisputed protection almost universally regarded limitation.6 Since class designed protect, under familiar judicial principles bring suit, see Stark Wickard, 321 288, 309, 64 559, 570, 733 (1944); cf. States ICC, 337 426, 433—434, 69 1410, 1414—1415, 93 1451 (1949), explicit standing.7 II. 6 Basic consideration merits appraisal significance Board's single argue gave weight whatever urge finding instead treated like administrative agency executive officer, set aside related statute. altogether dealing question, however,8 attempted here decided matter entirely own, finding. Rather, appears petitioners entitled acceptance unless range permissible choices contemplated think proper rule. initial must made every required public bodies cooperatives area.9 making most appropriate boundaries will normally evaluate engineering aspects providing especially relation topography affected region. Given innate inevitable vagueness concept complexity factors matter, efficient, line overall take determinations starting points lack reasonable support controlling, prohibiting, expansion. Cf. SEC England Electric, 384 176, 185, 1397, 1402, 456 (1966); Bates Guild Payne, 194 106, 109 110, 24 595, 597, 48 894 (1904). III. 7 Tested standard, respect County below. Neither language 15d, history, nor technical circumstances locality suggest exceeded outer choice 8 Certainly nothing 15d(a) forecloses present decision. second paragraph section reads: 9 'Nothing subsection customer had generally established being effective date Act.' 10 light provision, argues may services previously company. Literally, course, such It states utility service, perhaps broader controlling first 15d(a), customer; parts looked actual prohibition. literal reading, moreover, authorizes provide additional region 'extending five around periphery area'. followed proviso denying right 'municipality receiving another after 1957.' makes existence bar region, cannot read supplier, automatic 'area.' 11 parties called attention numerous incidents history suggesting involved case inside note maps placed committees showed Respondent counters map submitted House Public Works Committee respondent's addition, notes 'gentlemen's agreement' neighboring refers statements indicating sponsors intended enact law. 12 do information particularly helpful resolving us. rely large-scale representations multistate system, general reference. Even same artificial extreme assume actually entertained specific intention tiny portion county, State map. With agreement,' undeniable did hope freeze completely situation enactment limitation. Others, majority Senate particular, undoubtedly authorize adjustments permit certain amount elasticity availability service. sufficient note, tracing changes wording limitation, final form compromise views those who restrictive version. 13 Finally, apart structure facts rather undercut determination. place great stress characterized 'peninsula' attached main mere 'island' surrounded territory subject intrusion. can attribute characterizations. isolated necessarily connected company's here, company even, scattered along line—if indeed contains serve. At time broad contiguous crisscrossed lines; fact might justify 'island,' be, substantial 'peninsula,' best possible patterns distribution. rural minority themselves. Under circumstances, concluded pattern distribution sensible efficient competed well serving relatively unprofitable customers, whom close transmission considered significant, primary, themselves compelling reason supporting inclusion event significant resulted dislocations. 14 say conclusion incompatible formulated judgment affirm so ordered. Judgment reversed affirmed. 15 DOUGLAS MARSHALL took cases. HARLAN, dissenting. 17 These construction, differing reasonably entertained. I however, position adopted satisfactorily achieve evidently respectfully dissent. scope review action is, governed principally terms underlying Compare Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 30.03 (1958); Jaffe, Judicial Review: Question Law, Harv.L.Rev. 239; Control Action 546 seq. (1965). uncommonly plain. acknowledges, 'it (service area) limitation.' Ante, p. 665. expected 'defin(ing)' 'limit(ing)' 'working arrangement exists to' Authority's S.Rep. No. 470, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8. They constrict discretion disparagement recognize orderly law enforcement restraint unfettered hands party restrained; surely, therefore, proceedings involving measured generously. 20 role should, viewed hospitably where, reviewed significantly engage agency's expertise. instance 'where principal dispute relates term,' NLRB Marcus Trucking Cir., 286 583, 591; may, Judge Friendly noted, appropriately denominated 'question law.' Ibid. presents issues courts, Authority, expert. supra, 30.04. No doubt 'economic aspects,' ante, 9, topography, influence wish expand hardly prescribe stringency Congress' prohibitions 21 considerations, am unable accept decision, effect restrict severely 15d(a). forbids reviewing 'reasonable support,' discovers minimal evidence.1 bottom, adduced consists facts: first, distributor eight Tazewell;2 second, residents municipalities quite understandably prefer pay lower electrical charged Authority.3 If illustrate support' demanded Court, stringent proved extraordinarily fragile.4 22 pertinent provides formula precise measurement However, given stringently emphasis offers practical standard. expect that, holds, left largely, entirely, Authority. O'Sullivan's Appeals, 403, supplemented considerations discussed opinion. 73 Stat. 280, amended, 338, U.S.C. 831n—4(a). full text follows: 'Unless otherwise specifically authorized contracts delivery distributors, directly indirectly, care growth said area: Provided, That increase per centum (or thousand square miles, whichever lesser) 1957: And further, municipality hundred distributors. For owner electrically heated home, $30.50 winter month $75.53 identical S. 2373, 84th Sess. (1955); H.R. 4266, 85th (1957). 1855, 1869, 1986, 2145, (1957); 931, 3460, (1959). One Senators active framing expressed concern powerful bargaining purchase coal. 54 (1959) (Supplemental Views Senator Randolph). See, e.g., id., (majority report); 54—55 Randolph); Cong.Rec., 13053 (July 1959) (remarks Cooper); 13054 Holland); 13055 Kerr); 13060—13061 13061 Byrd); hearings 3460 Works, March 10—11, 1959, 115 (testimony Representative Vinson); 122 Boykin). Petitioners' reliance Kansas Light McKay, 96 App.D.C. 273, 225 924, cert. denied, 350 884, 76 137, 100 780 (1955), misplaced. McKay ruled 'long rule' sue competitors. statutes interests, precisely opposite. stated point: 'But, argues, committing determine area' words impliedly delegated authority.' F.2d, 412. Later opinion, suggests statement determination: 'We hold resolution foreclose testing validity appeal.' 415. 65, 831k. noted places much reached 'special meeting' August 26, 1964, months complaint, weeks trial. staff memoranda based litigation. supposed post litem motam warranted cautious treatment. Court's descriptive phrase noteworthy. 'a minority' found, fact, 95.3% customers. 502, 513. intimates darkly dislocations' occurred. evidence consist bottom allegations housing forms development tend locate less expensive available. Surely suppose unaware inexpensive, reside economically desirable extended neither belated explicitly included 'facts appear relevant' (Memorandum Manager General Manager, 25, Transcript Record 801) references aspects' (ante, 9), 13). Whatever relevance eyes immaterial. not, refer factors.

Category: 8