Task: sc_certreason

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the reason, if any, given by the court for granting the petition for certiorari.

Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases stem from proceedings commenced in 1960 by the Federal Power Commission under § 5 (a) of the Natural Gas Act, 52 Stat. 823, 15 TJ. S. C. § 717d (a), to determine maximum just and reasonable rates for sales in interstate commerce of natural gas produced in the Permian Basin. 24 F. P. C. 1121. The Commission conducted extended hearings, and in 1965 issued a decision that both prescribed such rates and provided various ancillary requirements. 34 F. P. C. 159 and 1068. On petitions for review, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit sustained in part and set aside in part the Commission's orders. 375 F. 2d 6 and 35. Because these proceedings began a new era in the regulation of natural gas producers, we granted certiorari and consolidated the cases for briefing and extended oral argument. 387 U. S. 902, 388 U. S. 906, 389 U. S. 817. For reasons that follow, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgments of the Court of Appeals, and sustain in their entirety the Commission's orders.
I.
The circumstances that led ultimately to these proceedings should first be recalled. The Commission’s authority to regulate interstate sales of natural gas is derived entirely from the Natural Gas Act of 1938. 52 Stat. 821. The Act’s provisions do not specifically extend to producers or to wellhead sales of natural gas, and the Commission declined until 1954 to regulate sales by independent producers to interstate pipelines. Its efforts to regulate such sales began only after this Court held in 1954 that independent producers are “natural-gas compan [ies]” within the meaning of § 2 (6) of the Act. 15 U. S. C. § 717a (6); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672. The Commission has since labored with obvious difficulty to regulate a diverse and growing industry under the terms of an ill-suited statute.
The Commission initially sought to determine whether producers’ rates were just and reasonable within the meaning of §§ 4 (a) and 5 (a) by examination of each producer’s costs of service. Although this method has been widely employed in various rate-making situations, it ultimately proved inappropriate for the regulation of independent producers. Producers of natural gas cannot usefully be classed as public utilities. They enjoy no franchises or guaranteed areas of service. They are intensely competitive vendors of a wasting commodity they have acquired only by costly and often unrewarded search. Their unit costs may rise or decline with the vagaries of fortune. The value to the public of the services they perform is measured by the quantity and character of the natural gas they produce, and not by -the resources they have expended in its search; the Commission and the consumer alike are concerned principally with “what [the producer] gets out of the ground, not... what he puts into it....” FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591, 649 (separate opinion). The exploration for and the production of natural gas are thus “more erratic and irregular and unpredictable in relation to investment than any phase of any other utility business.” Id., at 647. Moreover, the number both of independent producers and of jurisdictional sales is large, and the administrative burdens placed upon the Commission by an individual company costs-of-service standard were therefore extremely heavy.
In consequence, the Commission’s regulation of producers’ sales became increasingly laborious, until, in 1960, it was described as the “outstanding example in the federal government of the breakdown of the administrative process.” The Commission in 1960 acknowledged the gravity of its difficulties, and announced that it would commence a series of proceedings under § 5 (a) in which it would determine maximum producers’ rates for each of the major producing areas. One member of the Commission has subsequently described these efforts as “admittedly... experimental....” These cases place in question the validity of the first such proceeding.
The perimeter of this proceeding was drawn by the Commission in its second Phillips decision and in its Statement of General Policy No. 61-1. The Commission in Phillips asserted that it possesses statutory authority both to determine and to require the application throughout a producing area of maximum rates for producers’ interstate sales. It averred that the adoption of area maximum rates would appreciably reduce its administrative difficulties, facilitate effective regulation, and ultimately prove better suited to the characteristics of the natural gas industry. Each of these conclusions was reaffirmed in the Commission’s opinion in these proceedings. Its Statement of General Policy tentatively designated various geographical areas as producing units for purposes of rate regulation; in addition, the Commission there provided two series of area guideline prices, which were expected to help to determine “whether proposed initial rates should be certificated without a price condition and whether proposed rate changes should be accepted or suspended.” The Commission consolidated three of the producing areas listed in the Statement of General Policy for purposes of this proceeding.
The rate structure devised by the Commission for the Permian Basin includes two area maximum prices. The Commission provided one area maximum price for natural gas produced from gas wells and dedicated to interstate commerce after January 1, 1961. It created a second, and lower, area maximum price for all other natural gas produced in the Permian Basin. The Commission reasoned that it may employ price functionally, as a tool to encourage discovery and production of appropriate supplies of natural gas. It found that price could serve as a meaningful incentive to exploration and production only for gas-well gas committed to interstate commerce since I960; the supplies of associated and dissolved gas, and of previously committed reserves of gas-well gas, were, in contrast, found to be relatively unresponsive to variations in price. The Commission expected that its adoption of separate maximum prices would both provide a suitable incentive to exploration and prevent excessive producer profits.
The Commission declined to calculate area rates from prevailing field prices. Instead, it derived the maximum just and reasonable rate for new gas-well gas from composite cost data, obtained from published sources and from producers through a series of cost questionnaires. This information was intended in combination to establish the national costs in 1960 of finding and producing gas-well gas; it was understood not to reflect any variations in cost peculiar either to the Permian Basin or to periods prior to 1960. The maximum just and reasonable rate for all other gas was derived chiefly from the historical costs of gas-well gas produced in the Permian Basin in 1960; the emphasis was here entirely local and historical. The Commission believed that the uncertainties of joint cost allocation made it difficult to compute accurately the cost of gas produced in association with oil. It held, however, that the costs of such gas could not be greater, and must surely be smaller, than those incurred in the production of flowing gas-well gas. In addition, the Commission stated that the exigencies of administration demanded the smallest possible number of separate area rates.
Each of the area maximum rates adopted for the Permian Basin includes a return to the producer of 12% on average production investment, calculated from the Commission’s two series of cost computations. The Commission assumed for this purpose that production commences one year after investment, that gas wells deplete uniformly, and that they are totally depleted in 20 years. The rate of return was selected after study of the returns recently permitted to interstate pipelines, but, in addition, was intended to take fully into account the greater financial risks of exploration and production. The Commission recognized that producers are hostages to good fortune; they must expect that their programs of exploration will frequently prove unsuccessful, or that only gas of substandard quality will be found.
The allowances included in the return for the uncertainties of exploration were, however, paralleled by a system of quality and Btu adjustments. The Commission held that gas of less than pipeline quality must be sold at reduced prices, and it provided for this purpose a system of quality standards. The price reduction appropriate in each sale is to be measured by the cost of the processing necessary to raise the gas to pipeline quality; these costs are to be determined by agreement between the parties to the sale, subject to review and approval by the Commission. The Commission ultimately indicated that it would accept any agreement which reflects “a good faith effort to approximate the processing costs involved....” 34 F. P. C. 1068, 1071. In addition, the Commission prescribed that gas with a Btu content of less than 1,000 per cubic foot must be sold at a price proportionately lower than the applicable area maximum, and that gas with a Btu content greater than 1,050 per cubic foot may be sold at a price proportionately higher than the area maximum. The Commission acknowledged that the aggregate revenue consequences of these adjustments could not be precisely calculated, although its opinion denying applications for rehearing provided estimates of the average price reductions that would be necessary. Id., at 1073.
The Commission derived from these calculations the following rates for the Permian Basin. Gas-well gas, including its residue, and gas-cap gas, dedicated to interstate commerce after January 1, 1961, may be sold at 16.5$ per Mcf (including state production taxes) in Texas, and 15.5(4 (excluding state production taxes) in New Mexico. Flowing gas, including oil-well gas and gas-well gas dedicated to interstate commerce before January 1, 1961, may be sold at 14.5(4 per Mcf (including taxes) in Texas, and 13.5(4 per Mcf (excluding taxes) in New Mexico. Further, the Commission created a minimum just and reasonable rate of 9(4 per Mcf for all gas of pipeline quality sold under its jurisdiction within the Permian Basin. It found that existing contracts that included lower rates would “adversely affect the public interest.” FPC v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., 350 U. S. 348, 355. The Commission permitted producers to file under § 4 (d), 15 U. S. C. § 717c (d), for the area minimum rate despite existing contractual limitations, and without the consent of the purchaser.
The Commission acknowledged that area maximum rates derived from composite cost data might in individual cases produce hardship, and declared that it would, in such cases, provide special relief. It emphasized that exceptions to the area rates would not be readily or frequently permitted, but declined to indicate in detail in what circumstances relief would be given.
This rate structure is supplemented by a series of ancillary requirements. First, the Commission provided various special exemptions for producers whose annual jurisdictional sales throughout the United States do not exceed 10,000,000 Mcf. The prices in sales by these relatively small producers need not be adjusted for quality and Btu deficiencies. Moreover, the Commission by separate order commenced a rule-making proceeding to reduce the small producers’ reporting and filing obligations under §§ 4 and 7, 15 U. S. C. §§ 717c, f. 34 F. P. C. 434.
Second, the Commission imposed a moratorium until January 1, 1968, upon filings under § 4 (d) for prices in excess of the applicable area maximum rate. The Commission concluded that such a moratorium was imperative if the administrative benefits of an area proceeding were to be preserved. Further, it permanently prohibited the use of indefinite escalation clauses to increase prevailing contract prices above the applicable area maximum rate.
Finally, the Commission announced that, by further order, it would require refunds of the difference between amounts that individual producers had actually collected in periods subject to refund, and the amounts that would have been permissible under the applicable area rate, including any necessary quality adjustments. Small producers, although obliged to make refunds, are not required to take into account price reductions for quality deficiencies, unless they wish to take advantage of upward adjustments in price because of high Btu content. The Commission rejected the examiner’s conclusion that refunds were appropriate only if the aggregate area revenue actually collected exceeds the aggregate area revenue permissible under the applicable area rates. It held that such a formula would prove both inequitable to purchasers and difficult for the Commission to administer effectively.
On petitions for review, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the Commission had authority under the Natural Gas Act to impose maximum area rates upon producers’ jurisdictional sales. It sustained, but stayed enforcement of, the Commission’s moratorium upon filings under § 4 (d) in excess of the applicable area maximum rate. It approved both the Commission’s two-price system and its exemptions for small producers. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the Commission failed to satisfy the requirements devised by this Court in FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., supra. It held that the Commission had not properly calculated the financial consequences of the quality and Btu adjustments, had not made essential findings as to aggregate revenue, and had not indicated with appropriate precision the circumstances in which relief from the area rates may be obtained by individual producers. 375. F. 2d 6. On rehearing, the court also held that the Commission’s treatment of refunds was erroneous; it concluded that refunds were permissible only if aggregate actual area revenues have exceeded aggregate permissible area revenues, and only to the amount of the excess, apportioned on “some equitable contract-by-contract basis.” The Court of Appeals ordered the cases remanded to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with its opinions. 375 F. 2d 35.
II.
The parties before this Court have together elected to place in question virtually every detail of the Commission’s lengthy proceedings. It must be said at the outset that, in assessing these disparate contentions, this Court’s authority is essentially narrow and circumscribed.
Section 19 (b) of the Natural Gas Act provides without qualification that the “finding of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.” More important, we have heretofore emphasized that Congress has entrusted the regulation of the natural gas industry to the informed judgment of the Commission, and not to the preferences of reviewing courts. A presumption of validity therefore attaches to each exercise of the Commission’s expertise, and those who would overturn the Commission’s judgment undertake “the heavy burden of making a convincing showing that it is invalid because it is unjust and unreasonable in its consequences.” FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., supra, at 602. We are not obliged to examine each detail of the Commission’s decision; if the “total effect of the rate order cannot be said to be unjust and unreasonable, judicial inquiry under the Act is at an end.” Ibid.
Moreover, this Court has often acknowledged that the Commission is not required by the Constitution or the Natural Gas Act to adopt as just and reasonable any particular rate level; rather, courts are without authority to set aside any rate selected by the Commission which is within a “zone of reasonableness.” FPC v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 315 U. S. 575, 585. No other rule would be consonant with the broad responsibilities given to the Commission by Congress; it must be free, within the limitations imposed by pertinent constitutional and statutory commands, to devise methods of regulation capable of equitably reconciling diverse and conflicting interests. It is on these premises that we proceed to assess the Commission’s orders.
III.
The issues in controversy may conveniently be divided into four categories. In the first are questions of the Commission’s statutory and constitutional authority to employ area regulation and to impose various ancillary requirements. In the second are questions of the validity of the rate structure adopted by the Commission for natural gas produced in the Permian Basin. The third includes questions of the accuracy of the cost and other data from which the Commission derived the two area maximum prices. In the fourth are questions of the validity of the refund obligations imposed by the Commission.
We turn first to questions of the Commission’s constitutional and statutory authority to adopt a system of area regulation and to impose various supplementary requirements. The most fundamental of these is whether the Commission may, consistently with the Constitution and the Natural Gas Act, regulate producers’ interstate sales by the prescription of maximum area rates, rather than by proceedings conducted on an individual producer basis. This question was left unanswered in Wisconsin v. FPC, 373 U. S. 294. Its solution requires consideration of a series of interrelated problems.
It is plain that the Constitution does not forbid the imposition, in appropriate circumstances, of maximum prices upon commercial and other activities. A legislative power to create price ceilings has, in “countries where the common law prevails,” been “customary from time immemorial....” Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 133. Its exercise has regularly been approved by this Court. See, e. g., Tagg Bros. v. United States, 280 U. S. 420; Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503. No more does the Constitution prohibit the determination of rates through group or class proceedings. This Court has repeatedly recognized that legislatures and administrative agencies may calculate rates for a regulated class without first evaluating the separate financial position of each member of the class; it has been thought to be sufficient if the agency has before it representative evidence, ample in quantity to measure with appropriate precision the financial and other requirements of the pertinent parties. See Tagg Bros. v. United States, supra; Acker v. United States, 298 U. S. 426; United States v. Corrick, 298 U. S. 435. Compare New England Divisions Case, 261 U. S. 184, 196-199; United States v. Abilene & S. R. Co., 265 U. S. 274, 290-291; New York v. United States, 331 U. S. 284; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 387 U. S. 326, 341.
No constitutional objection arises from the imposition of maximum prices merely because “high cost operators may be more seriously affected... than others,” Bowles v. Willingham, supra, at 518, or because the value of regulated property is reduced as a consequence of regulation. FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., supra, at 601. Regulation may, consistently with the Constitution, limit stringently the return recovered on investment, for investors’ interests provide only one of the variables in the constitutional calculus of reasonableness. Covington & Lexington Turnpike Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578, 596.
It is, however, plain that the “power to regulate is not a power to destroy,” Stone v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 116 U. S. 307, 331; Covington Lexington Turnpike Co. v. Sandford, supra, at 593; and that maximum rates must be calculated for a regulated class in conformity with the pertinent constitutional limitations. Price control is “unconstitutional... if arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the legislature is free to adopt....” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502, 539. Nonetheless, the just and reasonable standard of the Natural Gas Act “coincides” with the applicable constitutional standards, FPC v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., supra, at 586, and any rate selected by the Commission from the broad zone of reasonableness permitted by the Act cannot properly be attacked as confiscatory. Accordingly, there can be no constitutional objection if the Commission, in its calculation of rates, takes fully into account the various interests which Congress has required it to reconcile. We do not suggest that maximum rates computed for a group or geographical area can never be confiscatory; we hold only that any such rates, determined in conformity with the Natural Gas Act, and intended to “balanc[e]... the investor and the consumer interests,” are constitutionally permissible. FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., supra, at 603.
One additional constitutional consideration remains. The producers have urged, and certain of this Court’s decisions might be understood to have suggested, that if maximum rates are jointly determined for a group or area, the members of the regulated class must, under the Constitution,- be proffered opportunities either to withdraw from the regulated activity or to seek special relief from the group rates. We need not determine whether this is in every situation constitutionally imperative, for such arrangements have here been provided by the Commission, and we cannot now hold them inadequate.
The Commission declared that a producer should be permitted “appropriate relief” if it establishes that its “out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the operation of a particular well” exceed its revenue from the well under the applicable area price. 34 F. P. C., at 226. It did not indicate which operating expenses would be pertinent for these calculations. The Commission acknowledged that there might be other circumstances in which relief should be given, but declined to enumerate them. It emphasized, however, that a producer’s inability to recover either its unsuccessful exploration costs or the full 12% return on its production investment would not, without more, warrant relief. It announced that in many situations it would authorize abandonment under § 7 (b), 15 U. S. C. § 717f (b), rather than an exception to the area maximum price. Finally, the Commission held that the burden would be upon the producer to establish the propriety of an exception, and that it therefore would not stay enforcement of the area rates pending disposition of individual petitions for special relief.
The Court of Appeals held that these arrangements were inadequate. It found the Commission’s description of its intentions vague. The court would require the Commission to provide “guidelines which if followed by an aggrieved producer will permit it to be heard promptly and to have a stay of the general rate order until its claim for exemption is decided.” 375 F. 2d, at 30. We cannot agree. It would doubtless be desirable if the Commission provided, as quickly as may be prudent, a more precise summary of its conditions for special relief, but it was not obliged to delay area regulation until such guidelines could be properly drawn. The Commission quite reasonably believed that the terms of any exceptional relief should be developed as its experience with area regulation lengthens. Moreover, area regulation of producer prices is avowedly still experimental in its terms and uncertain in its ultimate consequences; it is entirely possible that the Commission may later find that its area rate structure for the Permian Basin requires significant modification. We cannot now hold that, in these circumstances, the Commission’s broad guarantees of special relief were inadequate or excessively imprecise.
Nor is there reason now to suppose that petitions for relief will not be expeditiously evaluated; for the Commission has given assurance that they will be “disposed of as promptly as possible.” If it subsequently appears that the Commission’s provisions for special relief are for any reason impermissibly dilatory, this question may then be reconsidered.
Furthermore, it is pertinent that the Commission may supplement its provisions for special relief by permitting abandonment of unprofitable activities. The producers urge that this source of relief must be disregarded, since it is entirely conditional upon the Commission’s assent. It is enough for present purposes that the Commission has in other circumstances allowed abandonment, and that it has indicated that it will, in appropriate cases, authorize it here. Indeed, the Commission has already acknowledged that only in “exceptional situations” would the abandonment of unprofitable facilities prove detrimental to consumers, and thus impermissible under § 7 (b). 34 F. P. C., at 226.
Finally, we cannot agree that the Commission abused its discretion by its refusal to stay, pro tanto, enforcement of the area rates pending disposition of producers’ petitions for special relief. The Court of Appeals would evidently require the Commission automatically to issue such a stay each time a producer seeks relief. This is plainly inconsistent with the established rule that a party is not ordinarily granted a stay of an administrative order' without an appropriate showing of irreparable injury. See, e. g., Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Assn. v. FPC, 259 F. 2d 921, 925. Moreover, the issuance of a stay of an administrative order pending disposition by the Commission of a motion to “modify or set aside, in whole or in part” the order is a matter committed by the Natural Gas Act to the Commission’s discretion. §§19 (a), (c), 15 U. S. C. §§ 717r (a), (c). We have no reason now to believe that it would in all cases prove an abuse of discretion for the Commission to deny a stay of the area rate order. There might be many situations in which a stay would be inappropriate; at a minimum, the Commission is entitled to give careful consideration to the substantiality of the claim for relief, and to the consequences of any delay in the full administration of the area rate structure. We therefore decline to bind the Commission to any inflexible obligation; we shall assume that it will, in situations in which stays prove appropriate, properly exercise its statutory authority.
For the reasons indicated, we find no constitutional infirmity in the Commission’s adoption of an area maximum rate system for the Permian Basin.
We consider next the claims that the Commission has exceeded the authority given it by the Natural Gas Act. The first and most important of these questions is whether, despite the absence of any constitutional deficiency, area regulation is inconsistent with the terms of the Act. The producers that seek reversal of the judgments below offer three principal contentions on this question. First, they emphasize that the Act uniformly employs the singular to describe those subject to its requirements; § 4 (a), for example, provides that rates received by “any natural-gas company” must be just and reasonable. It is urged that the draftsman’s choice of number indicates that each producer’s rates must be individually computed from evidence of its own financial position. We cannot infer so much from so little; we see no more in the draftsman’s choice of phrase than that the Act’s obligations are imposed severally upon each producer.
Reliance is next placed upon one sentence in the Report of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, which in 1937 recommended passage of the Natural Gas Act. The Committee remarked that the “bill provides for regulation along recognized and more or less standardized lines.” H. R. Rep. No. 709, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 3. It added that the bill’s provisions included nothing “novel.” Ibid. We find these statements entirely inconclusive, particularly since, as the Committee doubtless was aware, regulation by group or class was a recognized administrative method even in 1937. Compare Tagg Bros. v. United States, supra; New England Divisions Case, supra. See also H. R. Rep. No. 77, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., 10-11; H. R. Rep. No. 456, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., 29-30.
Finally, the producers urge that two opinions of this Court establish the inconsistency of area regulation with the Natural Gas Act. It is asserted that the failure of a majority of the Court to adopt the reasoning of Mr. Justice Jackson’s separate opinion in FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., supra, impliedly rejected the system of regulation now selected by the Commission. We find this without force. The Court in Hope emphasized that we may not impose methods of regulation upon the discretion of the Commission; for purposes of judicial review, the validity of a rate order is determined by "the result reached not the method employed.” 320 U. S., at 602; see also FPC v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., supra, at 586. The Court there did not reject area regulation; it repudiated instead the suggestion that courts may properly require the Commission to employ any particular regulatory formula or combination of formulae.
The producers next rely upon a dictum in the opinion of the Court in Bowles v. Willingham, supra. The Court remarked that “under other price-fixing statutes such as the Natural Gas Act of 1938... Congress has provided for the fixing of rates which are just and reasonable in their application to particular persons or companies.” 321 U. S., at 517. The dictum is imprecise, but even if it were not, we could not agree that it can now be controlling. The construction of the Natural Gas Act was not even obliquely at issue in Bowles, and this Court does not decide important questions of law by cursory dicta inserted in unrelated cases. Whatever the dictum’s meaning, we do not regard it as decisive here. Compare Wisconsin v. FPC, 373 U. S. 294, 310.
There are, moreover, other factors that indicate persuasively that the Natural Gas Act should be understood to permit area regulation. The Act was intended to create, through the exercise of the national power over interstate commerce, “an agency for regulating the wholesale distribution to public service companies of natural gas moving interstate”; Illinois Gas Co. v. Public Service Co., 314 U. S. 498, 506; it was for this purpose expected to “balanc[e]... the investor and the consumer interests.” FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., supra, at 603. This Court has repeatedly held that the width of administrative authority must be measured in part by the purposes for which it was conferred; see, e. g., Piedmont & Northern R. Co. v. Comm’n, 286 U. S. 299; Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board, 313 U. S. 177, 193-194; National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190; American Trucking Assns. v. United States, 344 U. S. 298, 311. Surely the Commission’s broad responsibilities therefore demand a generous construction of its statutory authority.
Such a construction is consistent with the view of administrative rate making uniformly taken by this Court. The Court has said that the “legislative discretion implied in the rate making power necessarily extends to the entire legislative process, embracing the method used in reaching the legislative determination as well as that determination itself.” Los Angeles Gas Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 289 U. S. 287, 304. And see San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S. 439, 446. It follows that rate-making agencies are not bound to the service of any single regulatory formula; they are permitted, unless their statutory authority otherwise plainly indicates, “to make the pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by particular circumstances.” FPC v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., supra, at 586.
We are unwilling, in the circumstances now presented, to depart from these principles. The Commission has asserted, and the history of producer regulation has confirmed, that the ultimate achievement of the Commission’s regulatory purposes may easily depend upon the contrivance of more expeditious administrative methods. The Commission believes that the elements of such methods may be found in area proceedings. “[Considerations of feasibility and practicality are certainly germane” to the issues before us. Bowles v. Willingham, supra, at 517. We cannot, in these circumstances, conclude that Congress has given authority inadequate to achieve with reasonable effectiveness the purposes for which it has acted.
We must now consider whether the Commission exceeded its statutory authority by the promulgation of various supplementary requirements. The first of these is its imposition of a moratorium until January 1, 1968, upon filings under § 4 (d) for prices in excess of the applicable area maximum rate. Although the period for which the moratorium was to be effective has expired, the order is not without continuing effect. The Court of Appeals stayed enforcement of the moratorium until final disposition of the petitions for review, and a number of rate increases have therefore become effective subject to invalidation and refund if the moratorium order is now upheld. See Brief for the Federal Power Commission 69, n. 44.
The validity of the moratorium order turns principally upon construction of §§4 and 5 of the Act. Section 4 (d) provides that no modification in existing rate schedules may be made by a natural gas company except after 30 days’ notice to the Commission. When the Commission receives such notice, it is permitted by § 4 (e), upon complaint or on its own motion, to suspend the proposed rate schedule for a period not to exceed five months. The Commission is to employ the period of suspension to conduct hearings upon the lawfulness of the proposed rates. If at the end of the suspension period appropriate orders have not been issued, the proposed rate schedule becomes effective, subject only to a refund obligation. In contrast, § 5 (a) permits the Commission, upon complaint from a public agency or a gas distributing company, or on its own motion, to conduct proceedings to determine whether existing rates are just and reasonable, and to prescribe rates “to be thereafter observed and in force... These investigatory powers are not conditional upon the filing by a natural gas company of any proposed change in existing rates.
Certain of the producers urge that §§ 4 and 5 must in combination be understood to preclude moratoria upon filings under § 4 (d). They assert that the period of effectiveness of a rate determination under § 5 (a) is limited by § 4 (e); they reason that § 4 (d) creates an unrestricted right to file rate changes, and that such changes may, under § 4 (e), be suspended for a period no longer than five months. If this construction were accepted, it would follow that area proceedings would terminate in rate limitations that could be disregarded by producers five months after their promulgation. The result, as the Commission observed, would be that “the conclusion of one area proceeding would only signal the beginning of the next, and just and reasonable rates for consumers would always be one area proceeding away.” 34 F. P. C., at 228.
We cannot construe the Commission’s statutory authority so restrictively. Nothing in § 5 (a) imposes limitations of time upon the effectiveness of rate determinations issued under it; rather, the section provides that rates held to be just and reasonable are “to be thereafter observed....” Moreover, this Court has already declined to find in § 4 (d) or § 4 (e) an “invincible right to raise prices subject only to a six-month delay and refund liability.” United Gas v. Callery Properties, 382 U. S. 223, 232 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). Section 4(d) merely requires notice to the Commission as a condition of any modification of existing rates; it provides that a “change cannot be made without the proper notice to the Commission; it does not say under what circumstances a change can be made.” United Gas Co. v. Mobile Gas Corp., 350 U. S. 332, 339. (Emphasis in original.) Nor does § 4 (e) restrict the Commission’s authority under § 6 (a); it permits the Commission to preserve an existing situation pending consideration of a proposed change in rates, and thereafter to issue an order retroactively forbidding the change; but the “scope and purpose of the Commission’s review [under § 5 (a)] remain the same....” Id., at 341.
The deficiencies of the producers’ construction of §§ 4 and 5 are illustrated by United Gas v. Callery Properties, supra. The Court held in Cattery that permanent certifications issued under § 7 may be conditioned, even upon remand, by a moratorium upon filings under § 4 (d) for rates in excess of a specified ceiling. At issue were conditions imposed under § 7 (e) prior to the determination of just and reasonable rates; but nothing in the pertinent statutory provisions suggests that the Commission’s authority under § 5 (a) is more narrow. Indeed, if the producers’ construction of §§4 and 5 were adopted, we should be forced to the uncomfortable result that filings under § 4 (d) may be precluded by the Commission’s relatively summary determination of a provisional in-line price, but not by its formal adjudication, after full deliberation, of a just and reasonable price. The consequences of such a construction would, as the Commission observed, be the enervation of § 5 and the effective destruction of area regulation. We are, in the absence of compelling evidence that such was Congress’ intention, unwilling to prohibit administrative action imperative for the achievement of an agency’s ultimate purposes. We have found no such evidence here, and therefore hold that the Commission may under §§ 5 and 16 restrict filings under § 4 (d) of proposed rates higher than those determined by the Commission to be just and reasonable.
The question remains whether the imposition by the Commission of a moratorium until January 1, 1968, was a permissible exercise of this authority. The Commission found that in 1960 the costs of gas production had recently been, and would foreseeably remain, “remarkably steady”; it reasoned that in these circumstances a moratorium of 2y2 years, subject to “modification of its original decision after appropriate proceedings held in that docket,” would both facilitate orderly administration and satisfactorily assure the protection of producers’ rights. Individual producers would not have been prevented by the moratorium from seeking relief from the maximum area rates; relief would have been possible both through the Commission’s provisions for special exemptions and through motions for modification or termination of the moratorium. This is not a case in which the Commission has sought to bind producers, without recourse and in the face of changing circumstances, to an unchanging rate structure.
We cannot, given the apparent stability of production costs, the Commission’s relative inexperience with area regulation, and the administrative burdens of concurrent area proceedings, hold that this arrangement was impermissible. We need not attempt to prescribe the limitations of the Commission’s authority under §§ 5 and 16 to impose moratoria upon § 4 (d) filings; in particular, we intimate no views on the propriety of moratoria created in circumstances of

Question: What reason, if any, does the court give for granting the petition for certiorari?
A. case did not arise on cert or cert not granted
B. federal court conflict
C. federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question
D. putative conflict
E. conflict between federal court and state court
F. state court conflict
G. federal court confusion or uncertainty
H. state court confusion or uncertainty
I. federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty
J. to resolve important or significant question
K. to resolve question presented
L. no reason given
M. other reason
Answer:

Answer: L