system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 361 U.S. 195 80 S.Ct. 292 4 L.Ed.2d 237 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF STATE OF NEW YORKv.FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION et al. No. 459. UNITED GAS IMPROVEMENT CO. et al. v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION et al. No. 473. Supreme Court of the United States December 14, 1959 On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion to substitute Humble Oil & Refining Company, a Delaware corporation, in the place of Humble Oil & Refining Company, a Texas corporation, as a party respondent, is granted. The motions of Public Service Electric and Gas Company and the Alabama League of Municipalities for leave to file briefs, as amici curiae, are granted. 2 Messrs. Kent H. Brown and George H. Kenny, for petitioner. 3 Messrs. J. David Mann, Jr. and J. Louis Monarch, for petitioner United Gas Improvement Co. 4 Messrs. Vincent P. McDevitt and Samuel Graff Miller, for petitioner in No. 473 Philadelphia Electric Co. 5 Messrs. Willard W. Gatchell and Howard E. Wahrenbrock, for respondent Federal Power Commission. 6 Messrs. Richard J. Connor, John T. Miller, Jr., Thomas F. Brosnan, James B. Henderson, and William N. Bonner, Jr., for respondent Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. 7 Messrs. W. W. Heard and William J. Grove, for respondent Pan-American Petroleum Corp. 8 Messrs. Chas. B. Ellard and Bernard A. Foster, Jr., for respondent Atlantic Refining Co. 9 Messrs. Gentry Lee and Bernard A. Foster, Jr., for respondent Cities Service Production Co. 10 Messrs. Carl Illig and William J. Merrill, for respondent Humble Oil & Refining Co. 11 Messrs. Clayton L. Orn and James D. Parriott, for respondent Ohio Oil Co. 12 Messrs. Frank C. Bolton and William S. Richardson, for respondent Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc. (successor to Magnolia Petroleum Co.). 13 Mr. John C. Snodgrass, for respondent Pure Oil Co. 14 Mr. George D. Horning, for respondent Union Oil Co. of California. 15 Mr. Robert E. May, for respondent Hunt, trustee. 16 Messrs. Rayburn L. Foster, Harry D. Turner, Kenneth Heady, Charles E. McGee and Lambert McAllister, for respondent Phillips Petroleum Co. 17 Messrs. Martin A. Row, Robert E. May and Omar L. Crook, for respondent Sun Oil Co. 18 Mr. William M. Bennett, for State of California and Public Utilities Commission of California, as amici curiae. 19 Messrs. John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen. of Wisconsin, N. S. Hefferman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Roy G. Tulane, Asst. Atty. Gen., and William E. Torkelson, for State of Wisconsin and Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, as amici curiae. 20 Mr. David Berger, for City of Philadelphia, as amici curiae. 21 Mr. David Stahl, for City of Pittsburgh, as amici curiae. 22 Messrs. Joe W. Anderson, Roger Arnebergh, Alexander G. Brown, J. Elliott Drinard, N. H. Goldstick, Dion R. Holm, Claude V. Jones, Walter J. Mattison, John C. Melaniphy, Barnett I. Shur, A. C. Van, Soelen, Charles S. Rhyne and J. Parker Connor, for Member Municipalities of the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, as amici curiae. 23 Messrs. Charles S. Rhyne and J. Parker Connor, for Alabama League of Municipalities, as amici curiae. 24 Messrs. Edward Munce and Thomas M. Kerrigan, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, as amici curiae. 25 Mr. Edward S. Kirby, for Public Service Electric & Gas Co., as amici curiae. 26 The petition for writs of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cases are remanded to that court with directions to remand the cases to the Federal Power Commission for reconsideration and redetermination in the light of Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 360 U.S. 378, 79 S.Ct. 1246, 3 L.Ed.2d 1312. 27 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissents.

assistant: 8