Document: 426 U.S. 271 96 S.Ct. 1999 48 L.Ed.2d 626 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.CONWAY CORPORATION et al. No. 75-342. Argued April 21, 1976. Decided June 7, Syllabus An Arkansas public utility company (hereinafter Company) that makes wholesale interstate electricity sales, as well retail industrial sales in competition with some of its customers (including respondents, seven municipally owned electric systems and two cooperatives, operating within Arkansas) filed a rate increase the Federal Power Commission (FPC). Respondents sought to intervene before FPC, urging be rejected on ground it was "an attempt squeeze (respondents) . out make them more susceptible persistent efforts Company take over publicly State." The FPC allowed only limited intervention, excluding alleged anticompetitive activities outside FPC's jurisdiction, which does not reach sales. Court Appeals review took contrary position, holding Company's rates "in market is competing own are part factual context proposed will function ." should considered determining whether or just reasonable. Held : jurisdiction petition set aside reduce utility's permits consideration purpose forestall from at retail. Pp. 276-282. (a) Though Act confers respect sale energy commerce, has no authority correct an discriminatory relationship between by regulating nonjurisdictional, price, § 205(b) forbids maintenance any "unreasonable difference rates" service "with sale" subject jurisdictional necessarily implicated respondents' charge unreasonable anticompetitive. To extent discrimination traceable would apply, have remedial power under 206. 276-277. (b) Ratemaking exact science there single cost-recovering rate: one related another may discriminatory, although each if independently might fall zone reasonableness. When intrazonal unduly favors rate, must removed. 277-279. (c) While lacks fix rates, those into account when fixes for jurisdiction. Cf. Panhandle Co. v. 324 635, 646, 65 821, 826, 89 L.Ed. 1241, 1249. 279-282. 167 U.S.App.D.C. 43, 510 F.2d 1264, affirmed. Allan Abbot Tuttle, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Robert C. McDiarmid, respondents. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 question this case this: sells both seeks raise (Commission) consider allegations company's Commission's noncompetitive relation Commission? We hold does. 2 * & Light (Company) engaged commerce meaning 201 (Act), added, 49 Stat. 847, 16 U.S.C. 824. Its thus powers 206(a) establish just, reasonable, nondiscriminatory. 824e(a).1 also customers. These include cooperatives respondents here.2 Each these (Customers) operates State borde surrounded territory served Company. 3 In 1973, pursuant 205(d).3 Customers Commission, rejected. Among other grounds, asserted were accounts (the Customers) attempts public(ly) App. 6. It "impossible sell load size competitive price Company), since, many cases, revenues therefrom even cover incremental costs Customers)." Id., 7. filing "plainly against class customer historically attempted drive business, without justification ordinary cost basis .." 19. 4 opposed petition. permitted but ruled "limit Customers' participation proceeding matters than anti-competitive activities" because had failed demonstrate relief "within direct." 35. denied amended intervene, again refusing tendered issues. Inasmuch retail, "the beyond granted us Act." 53. later denying rehearing, stated considering base course put properly allocable business; issue presented "beyond scope purposes inappropriate proceeding, justness reasonableness (Company's) rates." 55. 5 action District Columbia Circuit. Appeals, disagreeing view powers, held sold furnished necessary effects requested irease. court held, 52, 1273 (1975). therefore remanded further proceedings. 6 certiorari correctly construed statutes controlling 423 945, 355, 46 276 now affirm judgment Appeals. II 7 Section 201(b) Act, 824(b), commerce.4 prohibition preferential services imposed reasonable accordingly "subject Commission," is, wholesale. prescribe companies. Nor, accordingly, remedy ordering rates. 8 As great pains establish, proper construction legislative history 205 indicating section expressly foreclose possibility seek raising otherwise price.5 Insofar we advised, party contends otherwise. 9 Building history, skillful argument neither nor Any resting nonjurisdictional But argument, end, untenable. Commission." A If undue preference way level plain enough apply; effect 206 appropriate order directed rate. This agree it. 10 appears insist can never contributing factor discrimination: Once determined inquiry irrelevant purposes, continues exist, wholly assumes, however, ratemaking said lowering always result unjustly low fail recover fully allocated costs. pointed reasonableness: "Statutory abstract quality represented area rather pinpoint. allows substantial spread what too high." Montana-Dakota Util. Northwestern Pub. Serv. Co., 341 246, 251, 71 692, 695, 95 912, 919 (1951). itself explained matter re Otter Tail F.P.C. 134, 149 (1940): 11 "It occurs Per se, independently, There considerable latitude insofar particular concerned. such zone, advantage favor situation exists, found exist removed." 12 cannot so easily satisfy obligation eliminate discriminations duty effects. exercise "clearly carries responsibility apprriate circumstances, regulated aspects operations directives contained §§ 205, Gulf States 411 747, 758-759, 93 1870, 1878, 36 644 (1973). arrive deemed doing effect. 13 think quite concluding: 14 "When allocated, reasonableness, yet create themselves. would, very least, lower range concern overall results impaired, decision depress certain curb customers." U.S.App.D.C., 53, F.2d, 1274. (Footnote omitted.) 15 Because raised barrier refused hear evidence concerning allegations, could determine partially abolish disposition. invade area. remedy, any, operate Whether affected all involve, indicated, examination entire "factual nction." 1273. facts naturally transactions, appear everyday affair. concedes, event jurisdictional, insure paying way, more. sense, structures commonplace, nothing required Colorado Interstate 581, 829, 1206 (1945),6 1241 (1945).7 17 Furthermore, provides whenever finds 18 "any charge, classification, demanded, observed, charged, collected transmission Or rule, regulation, practice, contract affecting classification unjust, unreasonable, preferential, shall thereafter observed force, same order." (Emphasis added.) 19 rules, practices, contracts "affecting" themselves context. case, Supra, decided almost identical provision Natural Gas 717d(a), emphasized aspect section, went "clear" gas "contracts covering direct sales" 20 "(t)he while jurisdiction." U.S., 827, 1250.8 21 Appeals' sound 22 So ordered. provides: "Whenever after hearing upon motion complaint, find 852, 824e(a). discriminatory: "No shall, (1) grant person prejudice disadvantage, (2) maintain charges, service, facilities, respect, either localities classes service." 851, 824d(b). respondent Conway Corp. (Conway, Ark.); Benton Municipal Water Works; Hope Commission; city North Little Rock; Osceola; Prescott; West Memphis; Farmers Electric Cooperative Corp., Mississippi County Cooperative, Inc. 205(d) "Unless orders, change made relating thereto, except thirty days' notice public. Such given keeping open inspection new schedules stating plainly changes schedule then force time go good cause shown, allow requiring herein provided specifying they manner published." 824d(d). relevant part: "The provisions Part apply deprive commission lawful exercised exportation hydroelectric transmitted across line." Under Regulate Commerce 1887, empowered intrastate freight discrimination. Houston Texas R. United States, 234 342, 356-359, 34 833, 838-839, 58 1341, 1350-1351 (1914). allocation return) designed perform character clear. amount gross revenue business known. Some derived fix. comes problem allocate fair share immaterial exceed their costs, since regulate phases lacking. extent, phase excessive." 588, 1215. "We separation unregulated whose embrace both. Otherwise profits losses, be, assigned transgress lines Congress wrote Act. recognizes necessity. Re Cities Service 50 P.U.R. (N.S.) 65, 89: 'The facilities devoted natural our consists principally directly large consumers. necessity arises, therefore, making non-jurisdictional sales.' formal exceptional circumstances case." 641-642, 825, 1247. For proposition room relies statement concurring Jackson 615, 845, 1229: true forbid ones." clear used "just reasonable" "By use comparison I reduction resale order. less desirable, long-range interest reasons me (FPC 320 591, 64 281, 88 333 (1944))." Ibid.

Category: 7