Document: 379 U.S. 687 85 S.Ct. 632 13 L.Ed.2d 605 FEDERAL POWER COMM'Nv.AMERADA PETEROLEUM CORP. et al. No. 585. Decided Feb. 1, 1965. Rehearing Denied March 29, See 380 959, 1081. Solicitor General Cox, Richard A. Solomon, Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Robert L. Russell and Peter H. Schiff, for petitioner. William Webster, Edwin S. Nail Joseph W. Morris, respondent Amerada Petroleum Corp. R. Allen Cecil Munn, Signal Oil & Gas Co. PER CURIAM. 1 Montana-Dakota (MDU) is an interstate natural gas pipeline company, selling transporting in Montana, North Dakota, South Wyoming. The lines involved here run to the east west from Tioga processing plant jointly owned by Signal, producers of Dakota. Also, running north point a line extending gasoline extraction plants Hunt-Herbert TXL (now Texaco), both 2 On peak winter day 1962—1963 MDU was expected purchase total 70,000 Mcf Dakota-produced these four producers: 55,000 Amerada-Signal, 10,000 TXL, 5,000 Hunt-Herbert. Of 50,000 would flow be consumed All gas, plus remaining Amerada-Signal west—a 20,000 Mcf. this westward-flowing 10,200 Dakota; 9,800 across state boundary into Montana consumption outside 3 average summer take about 45,000 while continuing 15,000 TXL. 13,000 westward, commingled with Only 1,680 stream 26,320 held storage ultimate redelivery all parts MDU's system. 32,000 eastward, Amerada-Signal. In contrast situation on day, only 7,280 east-ward-flowing 24,720 cross go storage. 4 contracts admittedly constitute sales resale within meaning § 1(b) Natural Act, 15 U.S.C. 717. These sellers applied were granted certificates public convenience necessity Commission. 27 F.P.C. 1092. 5 Prior entering Hunt-Herbert-TXL contracts, entered which are issue. First, concluded so-called 'North Dakota Contracts' Signal. Under must buy at least two-thirds its annual requirements it may up them if so elects. recite that 'all purchased Buyer under agreement shall transported, used entirely State Dakota.' Soon thereafter, separate 'Interstate provide or pay certain number per year (and day) available, 'less quantity respect such calendar (or Signal) Contract.' 6 Respondents contended before Federal Power Commission 'non-jurisdictional' since they not commerce resale. Relying decision Lo-Vaca Gathering Co., 26 606 (reversed, v. 323 F.2d 190, reversed, People California 366, 486), rejected contention asserted jurisdiction over sales. 30 200. Court Appeals reversed. 334 404. has petitioned writ certiorari. 7 sets delivered plant. According testimony engineer, elect Contracts.' Yet, as previously shown, some flows other sources, resold 9,000 Contracts,' 36,000 have metered off destined major part out-of-state. 8 Factually, therefore, present case fours 486. 9 thought Comm'n, Cir., 247 173, brought collateral estoppel play case, 404, 411—412. But rule no place judgment governing past events jeopardy, scope future regulation involves different transactions. Commissioner Sunnen, 333 591, 601—602, 68 715, 721, 92 L.Ed. 898. 10 Accordingly, certiorari granted, 11 It ordered. 12 Judgment Mr. Justice GOLDBERG, whom STEWART joins, concurring. 14 I agree clearly controlled our recent 486, thus join opinion Court. concur, however, order make explicit my understanding rational Court's case. At time action, respondents, Lo-Vaca, attributed themselves greater percentage non-jurisdictional than their proportionate share stream.* Thus, here, we need do reach issue whether 'in spite original commingling there might nonjurisdictional transaction precise amount * *.' U.S., 370, S.Ct., 489. 16 HARLAN. 17 Yielding view case-by-case approach acceptable method procedure area Commission's functions (see 486 dissenting therein 371, 489), concurring Brother GOLDBERG. Some years prior action claimed more share, those circumstances FPC disclaimed jurisdiction. FPC, 173 (C.A. 8th Cir. 1957). fact respondents exceeds Amerada-Signal's due addition new sources supply stream. This change, standing alone, makes inapplicable any doctrine based FPC's disclaimer Appeal's affirmance supra.

Category: 7