Document: 424 U.S. 494 96 S.Ct. 1003 47 L.Ed.2d 186 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.John E. MOSS et al. No. 74-883. Argued Dec. 3, 1975. Decided March 1976. Syllabus The Federal Power Commission (FPC), for the purpose of "stimulat(ing) and accelerat(ing) domestic exploration development natural gas reserves," by order established an "optional procedure certificating new producer sales gas." Under producers may tender FPC approval contracts sale at rates exceeding maximum authorized applicable rate order; will determine in a single proceeding whether "public convenience necessity" under § 7(c) Natural Gas Act (Act) warrants issuance certificate authorizing contract are "just reasonable" 4(a); permanent issued accepted is not subject to change later proceedings 4, be collected without risk refund obligations. At time it issues also authorize abandon end term if such abandonment warranted or 7(b), when expires then free discontinue deliveries original purchaser having demonstrate again that comports with public necessity. Petitions review were filed attacking entire optional procedure, but Court Appeals upheld except pregranted authority, which court held contravened 7(b) Act. provision no company shall its facilities service FPC's jurisdiction approval, based upon finding "the present future necessity permit abandonment." Held: An encompassing authority intended draw supplies interstate market clearly within abandonments justified Present Or Future necessity, timing being discretion. order, does specific abandonments, merely establishes judicial review, granted appropriate cases, question particular authorizations beyond expertise should await resolution concrete cases. In both case limited-time (which erroneous construction Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. FPC, 364 137, 80 1392, 4 1623, thought was barred Act) abandonment, properly can certification justifies allowing discontinuance date need further proceedings. Pp. 499-504. 164 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 502 F.2d 461, reversed part remanded. Mark L. Evans, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Morton Simons, respondents. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Section Act, 52 Stat. 824, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 717f(b), provides "(n)o natural-gas all any portion (Federal Power) Commission, rendered means facilities, permission first had obtained, after due hearing, . abandonment."1 presented this may, proper simultaneously commerce certain. District Columbia Circuit construed empower only proposed term, thus precluding power sales. Accordingly, set aside involved insofar permits terminate term. 461 (1974). We certiorari. 422 1006, 95 2627, 45 668 (1975). reverse. 2 * C Order 455, 48 F.P.C. 218, August 1972, involved. promulgated rulemaking pursuant notice April 6, 37 Fed.Reg. 7345, addition F's general rules practice 18 CFR 2.75 455 F.P.C., 218. did displace area pricing, instead provided alternative "stimulate accelerate reserves." Id., 225. necessary, found, because frequently unable, hazards price revisions lengthy appellate proceedings, rely orders, discouraged from exploring committing market. For "there assurance ultimately have some initial relied dedicated supply market." 222-223. "(T)he know how much get develops sells knows sure once cannot stop deliveries." 223. "This uncertainty," "has impeded development." Ibid. 3 introduced designed "lessen uncertainty has prevailed since early 1960's." 219. several features. First, gas2 exceed order3 Second, 717f(c), called 4(a), 717c(a). Third, Act,4 717c, 226. See 2.75(d) Fourth, authorizes inclusion "pregranted abandonment" case. 2.75(e) (1975).5 include is, however, exercised findings required 7(b). 455-A, 477, 481 (1972). importance obvious. Pregranted gives his indefinitely commit what lower priced market: he on expiration consistent II 5 attacked petitions before Appeals, respects save authority.6 holding requires public-convenience-or-necessity certification, stated, U.S.App.D.C., 12, F.2d, 472: 6 "Pregranted would leave market, perhaps years contemporaneous obligation justify withdrawal think contemplate procedure. 7 ". It appears us more clairvoyance than even Commission's reasonably encompasses." 8 find nothing face support section "does procedure." There express prescribing prerequisite allow sale. absence explicit direction, inference made Congress left discretionary "to regulate service," S.Rep.No.1162, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., (1937); H.R.Rep.No.709, (1937). broad responsibilities demand generous statutory authority," Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 747, 776, 88 1344, 1365, 20 312 (1968) (footnote omitted), plainly Congress' regulatory goals. 9 reasoning "clairvoyance" overlooks "Present " abandon. encompasses advance authorization consideration circumstances necessary estimation tomorrow's needs. That been our conclusion make forecasts events challenged other contexts. example, rejecting contention could consider nearly identical standard 7(e), Transcontinental Corp., 365 29, 81 435, 450, 377 (1961), stated "a forecast direction interest lies necessarily involves deductions expert knowledge agency." Similarly, another agency, we unwillingness let "uncertainties paralyze (Interstate Commerce) into inaction." United States Detroit & Cleveland Nav. Co., 326 236, 241, 66 75, 77, 90 L.Ed. 38 (1945). Thus, extent exercising entails forecasting developments affecting demand, say requiring degree renders authority. 10 Furthermore, conditions require cases encourage dedication indefinite commitments potentially available inaccessible conclude therefore either necessity.7 11 abandonments. Any approved 19(b), 717r(b). presume, did, competent supported substantial evidence approving abandonment. Rather, Texaco, Inc., 417 380, 392, 94 2315, 2323, 41 141 (1974).8 suffices purposes read leaving discretion.9 III 12 denying certain "fortified" Co.. 1623 (1960) (Sunray II). limitation who applied only. reasoned, id., 142, 1396: 13 "If petitioners' contentions, want grant where one limited duration sought for, sustained, way clear every independent seek period transmission company, automatically date, untrammeled regulation, reassess desired continue serving 14 understand passage implying limited-term certificate, concedes, Brief 22, legally functionally indistinguishable certificate.10 But Appeals' reading patently erroneous. fact indicated issue certificates. Tenth addressed earlier stage litigation 239 97 (1956), rev'd grounds, 353 944, 77 792, 794 (1957) I).11 implicitly stating, U.S., 157, S.Ct., 1404: "There indulging notion certificate." rather imply forbids certificate.12 supports reached fortify determines allows 16 judgment remanded opinion. 17 Reversed so ordered. 19 STEWART, POWELL, STEVENS took decision Chief BURGER, concurring judgment. 21 I concur Court, respect agree ), categorical suggests. do "patently erroneous." Ante, 503. 22 appear precisely same certificate. Permanent producer. indefinitely. additional novel feature apparently given choice term; This entirely hands voice whatever critical decision; do. seems me far different granting certificate; instance, certain, unless decide continue. 23 factor unregulated raises very evils pointed out II, supra: 24 "(E)very (would) To 1396. 25 evil acute here. abdicated eventual supplying cutting off markets. relinquishment inconsistent design 26 However, accepts affording discretion matters, Stare decisis compels accept result. full text: "No depleted continuance unwarranted, produced wells commenced previously sold 2.75(b)(5) After adoption national ceiling gas. Opinion 699, 51 2212 amended including ceiling, well rates. 455-B, 1416 not, limit applicability 5, 717d. noted unable "bind invoke prospective operation 5"; Commissioners "(t)o certainty rates, so." 223 reads follows: "Applications hereunder considered notwithstanding excess prior Commission." Respondents' cross-petition seeking adversely resolved their contentions denied. 1020, 2642, 680 disclaimed reliance ground, permitted unwarranted." occasion address ground Paradoxically, similar considerations led reject respondents' challenge reasonableness escalations included submitted Yet attempt distinguish respect. said: "We abstract proposition law impossible determination 'reasonableness' 4. Although practical matter skeptical about ability succeed endeavor, attempt. Whether succeeds depend evidentiary basis projections supporting escalations. proof answered record setting proposal it." 8, 468. Respondents claim amounts deregulation akin condemned 400, 2327 But, unlike small-producer exemption there, retains control over jurisdiction. found potentiality prejudice consumers" concerned II. 472. case, Sunray's position removed certificates whenever Both today's maintain regard, while reduces exercise responsibility. itself decided remanding resolve 794. sustained affirmance unlimited 267 471 (1959). Moreover, there circumstance hardly complained failed recognize request unlimited-term

Category: 7