Document: 364 U.S. 170 80 S.Ct. 1405 4 L.Ed.2d 1639 SUN OIL COMPANY, Petitioner,v.FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. SUNRAY MID-CONTINENT CO., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL Nos. 321, 335. Supreme Court of the United States June 27, 1960 Mr. Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 This case presents many same issues as Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. Federal Power Comm., 137, 1392. 2 Sun Company, is an independent producer making sales natural gas to transmission companies in interstate commerce ultimate resale public. In 1947 it entered into a contract with Southern Natural Gas company, sale which petitioner controlled Gwinville Field Jefferson Davis and Simpson Counties, Mississippi. The term was 10 years price roughly eight cents per Mcf. 3 After this Court's decisions Phillips Petroleum State Wisconsin, 347 672, 74 794, 98 L.Ed. 1035, on 7, 1954, Commission, series orders, required producers engaging jurisdictional or after date decision apply certificates public convenience necessity pursuant § 7(c) Act, 15 U.S.C.A. 717f(c).1 Under protest, applied certificate 'authorizing circumstances * described' its application. described consisted simply reference Natural, at time submitted by rate schedule. abbreviated consolidated proceeding disposing over 100 separate docket applications from 40-odd producers, scattered Colorado New Mexico West Virginia, Commission May 28, 1956, ordered issued each other applicants necessity, terms set out margin.2 Petitioner's contract-rate-schedule accepted FPC Rate Schedule No. 55. between expired August 26, 1957. parties however new 20-year continued field, commencing September 3, called initial increase 150 cent, 20 Mcf.3 Petitioner took view that had received 1956 limited duration old contract. It accordingly filed application covering contract, schedule under certificate, 5 717d.4 letter order 12, 1957, rejected duplicative petitioner's existing make field question, rate-schedule filing ground purported actually change A motion reconsideration later denied; suspended, 4(e) Act,5 effectiveness rates had, their rejection schedule, changes 4(d). 18 F.P.C. 609, 611. rehearing suspension rejected, petitioned review all these orders Appeals Fifth Circuit.6 That court affirmed, divided vote. Cir., 266 F.2d 222. We granted certiorari. 361 880, 151, 117. contention here, below, obtained remain effect only during life would leave free discontinue 1957 expiration sales, and, not unimportantly, file thereunder rather than change, reject affirm judgment Appeals. 6 First. major part argument based want authority objection, grant longer seeks permission fulfill. To be sure, if no such authority, we might take pains read seeking so time, though, compared Sunray's companion case, highly inexplicit desire issued. But have held today page 1392, has tender permanent certificate; keystone falls. 7 Second. Of course, if, despite petitioner, been authorize agree one. itself, construction given statute Sunray, did any explicitness ask certificate. asked one gas' contract; but said do that. See 149, 1399. And makes limitation time. contrast explicit references those instances where previously certificates.7 Commission's order, blanketed before mass proceeding, more about application, refers, fact, both sale' gas, authorizing 'service,' accords our 7(e) Sunray. hardly see basis overturning implied. Cf. Andrew G. Nelson, Inc. States, 355 554, 560, 78 496, 499, 484. 8 Moreover, there were doubt matter, removed fact batch containing when asserting lacked even power issue question 1956. taken position July 25, 1955, Corp., 14 877. until October 29, judicial occurred.8 239 97, reversed grounds, 353 944, 77 792, 794. Nothing shows attempt conception course mean every influence intended permanent. surpass belief say tendered assumption they contracts based. 9 Affirmed. [For dissenting HARLAN, whom FRANKFURTER, WHITTAKER, STEWART join, ante, p. 159.] pertinent provisions are forth 1399, note 15. 'The Orders: '(A) hereby issued, upon conditions Applicant resale, together operation facilities, subject jurisdiction used commerce, hereinbefore fully exhibits proceeding. '(B) herein shall deemed full force effect, unless refused writing oath within 30 days issuance order. '(C) transferable effective long continues acts operations authorized accordance applicable rules, regulations Commission. '(D) construed waiver requirements Section Act (15 717c), 154 Rules Regulations requiring schedules service authorized, without prejudice findings may hereafter made now pending instituted against Applicant. Further, action foreclose nor future proceedings objection relating related provision purchase involved.' There slight discrepancies comparison rates, due computed somewhat different pressure bases. states giving difference spread rates. For provisions, opinion, 144, 1397, 11. 145, 13. takes suspending directly reviewable since very presented 4(c), concededly Appeals, contested raised properly below concedes. If error rejecting filing, doubtless withdrawn. See, e.g., Louisiana-Nevada Transit Co., 546, 549 (10 years); Ray Phebus, 1044, 1045 (8 688, 689 (1 year). While affirmed grounds proceeded—for Appeals' here—the maintained F.2d, 100, 7. abandoned certiorari here.

Category: 7