Opinion ID: 307053
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Updating as the Alternative

Text: 14 AT might also contend that the Association has all along been alleging error on the staleness decision and has not adequately pressed the claim that the FPC should have immediately reopened the proceeding on 17 October 1969. Obviously, the Association has emphasized the staleness issue because a holding of legal error on that question, on its theory of the case, might lead to broader retroactive relief. However, a fair reading of the Association's challenges clearly shows that it conceded the possibility of some necessity for updating and urged the Commission to reopen the record as necessary. 13 The difference between what the Association asked and what the Commission eventually did was how extensive an updating was required to produce an adequate record. Indeed, given the generally prospective nature of Section 5 rate relief, and the Association's steadfast claim that AT's rates were illegal, this argument in the alternative was the Association's inevitable position. 15 The Association has repeatedly and without qualification challenged the dismissal at every appropriate stage of this proceeding. Although it failed to place primary emphasis on the particular argument which we accept, AT and the Commission were adequately apprised of its claim that dismissal, rather than expeditious updating and decision, was error warranting retroactive relief.