Opinion ID: 339939
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Problem and Its Genesis

Text: 19 Opinion No. 565 and its companion order were supported by the majority votes of Chairman White and Commissioners O'Connor and Bagge in every aspect save one. 105 The one divergence was on the question whether the just and reasonable rate was to be utilized retroactively as well as prospectively as the basis for computing producer refunds to Texas Eastern. 106 On that issue, Chairman White took the affirmative 107 and Commissioners O'Connor and Bagge the negative 108 but they were joined by Commissioners Carver and Brooke for decisional purposes, 109 although the latter two dissented for other reasons. 110 20 Similarly, Opinion No. 565-A and the order related to it were sustained, initially at least, by the unqualified votes of Chairman Nassikas and Commissioner Bagge, 111 and by the votes which two of their disagreeing colleagues, Commissioners Carver and Brooke, reluctantly contributed to enable the disposition dictated by that opinion and order; 112 only Commissioner O'Connor voted against that disposition. 113 The order denying rehearing of Opinion No. 565-A was backed by a majority consisting of Chairman Nassikas and Commissioners O'Connor and Bagge, 114 with Commissioners Carver and Brooke undertaking to withdraw [their] reluctant concurrence in that opinion; 115 and it was the purported withdrawal that bred the first controversy which we consider. 21 PSC, 116 deeming the withdrawal effective, contends that the majority voted originally effectuating Opinion No. 565-A in its modification of Opinion No. 565 evaporated with the vote on the order refusing rehearing of Opinion No. 565-A. In other words, PSC claims that when Commissioners Carver and Brooke retracted their joinder in Opinion No. 565-A, that opinion perished and Opinion No. 565 became automatically reinstated. Texas Easter n argues similarly, though more limitedly, that after the loss--because of t he withdrawal--of a majority of the commissioners for Opinion No. 565-A, the re could no longer be the certificate condition, fashioned in that opinion, converting the responsibility for producers payments from the contract total of $134 million to a liability for continuing payments until cessation o f gas production in the transferred leasehold properties. 22 The Commission, on the other hand, eschewing the withdrawal, asserts that the majority vote for Opinion NO. 565-A when issued was unaffected by the subsequent voting with respect to the applications for rehearing of that opinion, and in that position the producers unite. The issue thus boils down to whether the attempted withdrawal changed the 4-1 vote for Opinion No. 565-A and its suspension of the certificate conditions to a vitiating 3-2 vote against Opinion No. 565-A, thus restoring Opinion No. 565 as the final and only decision of the Commission. It is important to resolve the dispute at the outset so that we may know just what we are legitimately called upon to review.