Document: 377 U.S. 33 84 S.Ct. 1105 12 L.Ed.2d 112 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.TEXACO, INC., et al. No. 386. Argued March 25, 1964. Decided April 20, Rehearing Denied June 15, See 1881. Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Carroll L. Gilliam, and Alfred C. DeCrane, Jr., Houston, Tex., respondents. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The Federal Power Commission in its regulation independent producers1 natural gas has required them to file their contracts as rate schedules. This was done by regulations which evolved a result series rule-making proceedings.2 pertinent presently provide that only certain pricing provisions producers are 'permissible,'3 any other being 'inoperative no effect at law.'4 go on say contract executed or after 2, 1962, containing pricechanging than 'permissible' ones, 'shall be rejected' so far producer rates concerned,5 producer's application certificate public convenience necessity under § 7 Natural Gas Act if submitted support it contains forbidden provisions,6 that, pipeline certificates concerned, date infirmity 'will given consideration determining adequacy' company's supply.7 2 These were adopted pursuant 4 Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 238, 5 U.S.C. 1003. General notice proposed rule making published Register 4(a) Act. also gave interested parties 'hearing' 4(b).8 No oral argument had but an opportunity afforded all submit views writing; two respondents this case—Texaco Pan American—along with others, did so. 3 Later, each respondent supply company. Section provides, exceptions not material, set' such 'for hearing.' Since, however, applications disclosed price clauses regulations,9 without hearing rejected applications. 28 F.P.C. 551; 29 378. Petitions review filed Court Appeals, set aside orders Commission. 10 Cir., 317 F.2d 796. It held while valid statement policy, they cannot used deprive applicant statutory granted those who seek necessity. cases here one petition certiorari we because apparent conflict between decision Superior Oil Co. v. Comm'n, 9 322 601, decided Appeals Ninth Circuit. 375 902, 193, 11 142. I. A preliminary question, concerns Texaco Inc., alone, is whether venue these properly Tenth governing provision 19(b) provides: 'Any party proceeding aggrieved order issued may obtain court appeals United States circuit wherein natural-gas company relates located principal place business, District Columbia * *.' 6 term 'is located' would have ambivalent meaning lay 'any circuit' where located.' But context covers either 'has business.' Hence main derives from fact substituted 'resides' early draft bill10 later emerged derived. found change decisive; can conjecture why made, explanation appears. bill person aggrieved' substituting 'licensee utility' 'person aggrieved.' Since latter language changed personal impersonal be, says, Congress trying use common legal parlance corporation 'can home authority charter,' stated Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 369, 377, 24 L.Ed. 853. And see Neirbo Bethlehem Corp., 308 165, 169, 153, 167. However think means more having physical presence existence place, since alternate referred 'principal recognized overlap inherent construction resolved doubts favor Circuit sold contested produced performance took there. deal enacted August 26, 1935. At time down 1948 amendment 1391 Judicial Code, 1391(c), residence purposes federal State district been incorporated. Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations (1931), 4385. That theme runs through cases. See, e.g., Shaw Quincy Mining Co., 145 444, 449—450, 935, 36 768. We conclude although 'located' sometimes indicating business (Mercantile Nat. Bank Langdeau, 371 555, 83 520, 523), setting equated refers case incorporation. There symmetry choice, circuits then left State, business' (with penumbra places here), sits. 8 Delaware there claim within therefore erred failing dismiss lack venue. is, another respondent, American, whose proceed merits application. II. issue 4(b) adequate, present governed principle Storer Broadcasting 351 192, 76 763, 100 1081, requirement does preclude particularizing standards rulemaking process barring threshold neither measure up nor show reasons interest should waived. In Communications Commission, general authority, limited permissible multi le ownership radio television stations. Storer, seven stations five stations, automatically disqualified further licensing. To surmount barrier argued license served before could benied, must held. said: 'We read Regulations providing 'full hearing' applicants reached existing limit upon presentation conforming Rules 1.361(c) 1.702, out adequate waived amended. considered whole, requires more. agree contention full hearing, 309(b) necessary As promulgated extensive administrative hearings, accompanying papers forth reasons, sufficient true, justify waiver Rules. do intended waste state basis hearing. If refusal, way open.' U.S., 205, 771, 1081. case, procedure provided whereby ask complained of.11 Facts might conceivably alleged face price-clause rules matter. Cf. Atlantic Refining 469; 384. attempt made point immediate applicability. 13 here, ample conditions 7. 16 gives power prescribe 'as find appropriate carry Act.' procedural aspect question important effectuating aim protect consumer interest. Comm'n Hope 320 591, 610, 64 281, 88 333. 5(a) pass affecting rates, particular 'unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, preferential' thereupon determine 'just reasonable' 'fix same.' Pipe Line Mobile Service 350 332, 341, 373, 373. where, 7(e) control terms companies, initiate sales wholesale c mmerce. Public 360 378, 389, 79 1246, 1312. 14 American disagree score; insists changes adjustments adversary answers. structure necessity; merely qualifications applicants. Those category relate ability serve regulated field. They kin kind capital his reason remembered increases initiated company, burden 4(e) legality suspend new rates. supra. companies enter field prearranged escalator like built-in device ready manipulation upward. Protection interests against best achieved very enterprise. least conclude;12 legislative history makes clear reaches far. H.R.Rep.No.1290, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 2—3, states: 15 '* when will giving scrutinize financial set-up, adequacy reserves, feasibility services, characteristics connection extension vital matters readily modified demand. *' (Italics added.) S.Rep.No.948, 2d 1—2. 17 require case-by-base it, long policy outlawed indefinite price-changing provisions, repeat conclusions condemn them. vast proliferation Phillips Petroleum Wisconsin, 347 672, 74 694, 98 1035, thousands individual seeking Wisconsin 373 294, 300, 1266, 357. scheme processes need prolonged13 crippled. 18 finally argues accorded Act14 comply points relevant fullfledged adversary-type 'every adjudication statute determined record agency 'Adjudication' defined 2(d) 'agency formulation order'; 'order' 'the whole part final disposition matter including licensing.' 'licensing' respecting denial license.' 2(e). What cases, 'adjudication,' 'an order,' 2. Whether qualify never reached. proper form tenders. decisions entitled 19 Reversed. 20 STEWART, dissenting part. 21 I Part Court's opinion, holding Inc. dismissed agree, adjudicative entitles him. My substantially expressed Judge Breitenstein's Appeals. 796, 804—807. 52 821—833, amended, §§ 717—717 w; 794, 1035. Order 174—B, 1576, CFR 157.25; 232, 25 379, 26 Fed.Reg. 1983, amended 232A, 609, 2850; 242, 27 339, 1356; Reg. 154.91 seq., (Cum.Supp.1963) seq. 154.93 defines provisions: '(a) Provisions reimburse seller production, severance, gathering taxes levied seller; '(b) specific amount definite date; '(c) once five-year periods during (paragraph (b) section), price-redetermination based higher subject jurisdiction suspension proceedings, and, area Ibid. For discussion escalation Pure 383, aff'd 299 370. 157.25. 157.14(a)(10)(v). 'After section, shall afford persons participate submission written data, views, arguments same orally manner; presented, incorporate concise purpose. Where requirements sections apply subsection.' American's (1) one-cent 1968, 1973, 1978, (2) redetermination 'fair market price' period commencing October 1, event less 20.5 cents per thousand cubic feet. Texaco's contained become effective times happening circumstances future, passage 5, 10, years, increased taxation gathering, transportation, sale, delivery renegotiations undertaken six months prior beginning third (1974) fourth (1979) four into divided. 313(b) 49 860, 825l(b); cf. S. 1725, 74th 2796 session. Regulation 1.7(b), provides part: 'A issuance, amendment, waiver, repeal clearly concisely petitioner's matter, rule, requested, cite reference therefor. filing accompanied request section thirty-day 4(d) 205(d) begin run grants request. Such purpose of, facts claimed contitute grounds requiring, repeal, conform 1.15 1.16. issuance amendment.' last now challenged 'Protection touchstone our regulatory powers Commission's obligation segment protected, compel acquiesce incompatible regulation. sure, impact contractual practices fairly widespread. real 'freedom contract'; rationally related condition correction objectives embraced achieved. Trucking Associations States, 344 298, 73 307, 97 337. view, adopt fully meets test. (see note 4, supra) contrary restated conclusion 232A. Increases prices, triggered clauses, resulted flood almost simultaneous filings. filings bear relationship economic contemplates just reasonable, needs. elimination not, course, cut off avenues cot make 'Filings created significant portion burdens laboring today. sought justification, chain reaction wide whenever negotiates level. give precedence increases, complexity spend undue interpretation expense prompt determination issues involved. Accordingly, protecting waves defensible basis, believe take account—of tasks manageable.' 340, 1356, 1357. recent years elapsed close proceedings. Shell 617, 74, sub nom. 263 223, rev'd Texas Transmission Corp. 363 263, 80 1122, 1208; remand, 292 149, cert. denied, 368 915, 82 195, 131. 8,

Category: 8