Document: 382 U.S. 223 86 S.Ct. 360 15 L.Ed.2d 284 UNITED GAS IMPROVEMENT CO. et al., Petitioners,v.CALLERY PROPERTIES, INC., al. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF the STATE NEW YORK, Petitioner, v. CALLERY OCEAN DRILLING & EXPLORATION COMPANY, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Nos. 21, 22, 26 and 32. Argued Oct. 18, 19, 1965. Decided Dec. 7, Rehearings Denied Jan. 17, 1966. See 1001, 526. [Syllabus from pages 223-224 intentionally omitted] Richard A. Solomon, Washington, D.C., for Federal Power commission. William T. Coleman, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., United Gas Improvement Co. others. Kent H. Brown, Albany, N.Y., Public Service Comm'n of New York. J. Evans Attwell, Houston, Tex., Ocean Drilling Exploration Herbert W. Varner, Superior Oil F. Generelly, Callery Properties, Inc. Paul Hicks, Dallas, Placid Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion Court. 1 The Commission in 1958—1959 granted unconditional certificates public convenience necessity to numerous producers gas south Louisiana, sales contracts calling initial prices ranging 21.4 cents 23.8 per Mcf. After deliveries commenced under those contracts, consumer interests challenged orders various courts appeals. Court Appeals Third Circuit sustained Commission's action (United Comm'n, 3 Cir., 269 F.2d 865) but we vacated judgment (Public State York 361 195, 80 292, 4 237) reconsideration light Atlantic Refining (CATCO), 378, 79 1246, 1312; other appeals did likewise.1 2 thereupon instituted an area rate proceeding Louisiana consolidated remanded cases with that proceeding. 25 F.P.C. 942. It advised their potential obligation refund any amounts eventually found be inconsistent 'with requirements interest necessity' § 7 Natural Act, 52 Stat. 824, as amended, U.S.C. 717f. 27 15. Later expedition severed present group applications set them a hearing 7. 482. At end, imposed two conditions on these cases. First, it provided commence service at 18.5 Mcf., plus 1.5 tax reimbursement where applicable, price 'in line' Commission-certificated southern production generally contemporaneous 30 283, 288—289. Second, until just reasonable rates are determined or July 1, 1967, whichever is earlier, shall not file increased above 23.55 cents, level which filings might trigger by escalation provisions pipeline companies here involved. 298. In addition, ordered customers excess proper they had already collected original certificate. 290. On review held erred limiting 'in-line' without first canvassing evidence bearing question what would gas. further no power place upper limit future producer file. Finally, Appeals, while upholding order refunds, measure such refunds was difference between contract price, latter subsequently fixed. 335 1004. We certiorari, 380 931, 85 935, 13 820. reverse Appeals. 5 think acted lawfully responsibly line our decision CATCO case need permit sold interstate market producer's pending determination 5, 823, 717d. 388—391, 1253—1255. Rather, there ample 7(e),2 attach appropriate protective conditions. And see Hunt, 376 515, 524—527, 84 861, 866—868, 11 878. fixing establishes firm may operate, rate, contingent make should turn out lower than price. Consumer protection afforded keeping substantial have been certificated enter certificates, onger subject judicial way 'suspect.' believe can properly conclude adequate requires interim higher existing levels. To consider this mass relevant practical effect render nugatory effort fix prices.3 said procedures designed 'to hold awaiting adjudication rate' (360 U.S., 392, S.Ct., 1255), 'the inordinate delay' proceedings 391, 1255) cripple them. 6 second condition temporarily bars increases beyond likewise aimed general relatively constant rate. noted supra, 524, 867, 'a triggering rises often results out-of-line pricing gas' possibility does afford sufficient protection. Texaco Inc., 377 33, 42—43, 1105, 1110—1111, 12 112. think, contrary 7(e) during period though certificate temporary one, permanent supra. supported were 'suspect,' selection increase reflects expertise. 8 also allowable. reject, below, suggestion lacked authority refund. While 'has reparation orders,' Hope Co., 320 591, 618, 64 281, 295, 88 L.Ed. 333, its being prospective only. 389, 1254, so restricted order, never became final, has overturned reviewing court. Here review; times return benefits received upset administrative order. Securities Exchange Chenery Corp., 332 194, 200—201, 67 1575, 1579—1580, 1760, 91 1995. An agency, like court, undo wrongfully done virtue Under circumstances, could required refunds4 exceeding interest. 9 charged conditioned. delay payment 'just reasonable' determined. elsewhere duty Commission, 'where due, direct earliest possible moment consistent due process.' Tennessee Transmission 371 145, 155, 83 211, 216, 199. These excessive since 1958; further. imposition inappropriate means preventing unjust enrichment. Texaco, 290 149, 157; Philip Carey Mfg. Miami Cabinet Division National Labor Relations Board, 331 720, 729—731. 10 Reversed. FORTAS took part consideration HARLAN, concurring dissenting part. expansive view powers seems me largely defensible abstract, I actual reveals error unfairness important respects. I. 14 condition, alone three key prongs my wholly sustained. chief challenge stems exclusion cost supply-demand tendered producers.1 Although encompassing standard encourages broad inquiry, given valid reasons itself in-line time being. Area ultimately aims simplify statute, transition strain resources investigation. Wisconsin FPC, 373 294, 298—300, 313—314, 1266, 1269—1270, 1276—1277, 357. comparatively easy fix, provides basis producers, helps avoid unrefundable overcharges, exerts downward pressure price; same time, six-month most. fair trial evidence,2 nothing offer proof suggests crisis warranting court intervention approach. locating ignored number high-price labeled 'suspect' because then review, disapproved, deemed influenced disapproved. danger using crooked measuring rod demands some precaution, blanket chances distortion favor unduly low main chosen brief question, apparently misapprehension Government sought sustain court's failure reach precluded doing so.3 But suspect rule default abided instance, close door arguments different solution dilemma. 16 A last troubling aspect derives critical unusual circumstance: it, case, remand, several years after issued. Presumably six months hence, will compelled sell accepted when free refuse; all appears, even below cost, let profit. However, seek option cancel if dissatisfied newly conditioned both familiar, cannot say legitimate imposing did. II. 17 price-increase moratorium grasp, record before us. Recognizing force do must read bestow invincible right raise only liability. Cf. FPC 112; freeze 1967 pricefixing, interregnum individual pricing, hazard irreversible warrants brake. lengthy coupled refusal figures setting duration—might real risk choking off supply, 18 Nevertheless, remand hazardous device best, one simply evidence. Because chance refuse commencing delivery, ceiling coerce unfairly prices. Yet endured longer least permits charge markedly amount; safety valve explosion, upheld. point, however, Government's argument fails lack explosion likely rise figure. figure considered examiner, who made recommendation moratorium. report devotes more conclusory sentence, qualified footnote, specific large, F.P.C., 298; rather amplifying, merely contends point adequately preserved 19—a contention accept.4 Several state fear realized although currently levels intended III. 19 agreeing us, repayment selected illogical harsh. power, conceded statute sale approved qualification; approval instances become final want equitable fairly implied. 20 another matter. now directed repay over four established price.5 Since fixed reference falls opening negotiated well receiving less expressly claim; revision covers years. 21 obvious formula, implicated adopted call measured §§ naturally takes account costs. retorts 'right' proposition perhaps true limited sense yet exclude fair-profit uniquely high face glutted market. No attempt made, class facts imaginable situations. Nor advance fearsome unexpected repricing completed depriving seller profit 22 Governement failed overrriding potent claims past sales. Any caused previously spent undone. Unconvincingly, implies formula prove instant certainty great gain taxes royalties paid, get deserve following substitute assuring return. About concrete advantage cited Covernment speeds consumers. Assuming compromise reached cases,6 elaborate data available next year completion Consumers, assuredly expected paid bills long ago years, certainly suffer seriously waiting bit individually minute most 23 incongruity portrayed considering happened originally thought By accepting conditioning immediately filed increases, suffering sixmonth delay. Even survived, four-to-six-year 18.5-cent imposed. Thus, instance still payments ultimate finding denied Commission. 24 foregoing discussion, uphold findings wishes pursue aside leave repayments based 283 817; 109 U.S.App.D.C. 287 146; 159; 133; 147. Section part: 'The issuance exercise rights thereunder terms require.' early post-CATCO cases, proceeded case-by-case basis, whatever presented. See, e.g., Continental 96, 102—108. Experience convinced minimal utility derived economic trend outweighed burdens delays inevitably produced. Skelly 28 401, 410—412. constructively exercised discretion declining large quantity considerable expenditure manpower, cf. 313, 1276, encouraged devise streamlining procedures, 527, 868, regard step direction. 44, 1112, problem affected filling within limits 822, 717c. 4(d), 30-day notice having 4(e) suspend new five thereafter act 'after full hearings.' If expiration suspension, effective. require furnish bond, compel portion charges justified.' citations herein 821, 717—717w (1964 ed.). majority's note 3, ante, p. 228. Petition Certiorari, 15, n. 14. This precise ground attack upon forth producer. ODECO Application Rehearing Before FPC. R. 603. Applications argued instead plainly illegal Fifth Circuit's Hunt 306 334, reversed 35. seem preclude allowing benefit pinpointed ODECO. Deliveries nearly 1959 cents. directing issued later 1963, clearly indicate occasions, agreements fraction settlement 247 (other case); 1090 (on CATCO).

Category: 7