Document: 348 U.S. 492 75 S.Ct. 467 99 L.Ed. 583 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS COMPANY. No. 45. Argued Jan. 31, 1955. Decided March 28, Mr. Warren E.Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner. James Lawrence White, New York City, respondent. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The principal question before us is whether, on a petition to review natural gas rate reduction order Federal Power Commission, Court Appeals may consider, sua sponte, an objection which has not been urged Commission in application rehearing prescribed by § 19 Natural Gas Act.1 Alternatively, also raised such proceeding, invalidate, existing prohibits inclusion certain operating expenses company its cost service, where only proposed and acquiesced company, but imposed it as condition merger under operating. For reasons hereafter stated, we answer each these questions negative. 2 In 1948, petitioner herein, instituted investigation against respondent, Colorado Interstate Company, 5(a) Act, 52 Stat. 823—824, 15 U.S.C. 717d(a), U.S.C.A. 717(a). While this was pending, respondent Canadian River Company filed joint 7 same 824 825, amended, 717f, 717f. That sought certificate public convenience necessity permitting merge with latter acquire operate properties, construct additional facilities. Objection made that consumers, receiving from might be forced share respondent's loss if costs gasoline operations undertaken exceeded revenues them. To meet objection, any exclude company's service.2 3 1, 1951, wrote above proposal certification merger. 10 F.P.C. 105, 778.3 No sought. consummated enjoyed benefits since December 1951. 4 resumed 1951 year 1952 became test year. usual intermediate decision omitted and, August 8, 1952, issued findings order. 95 P.U.R.(N.S.) 97. had argued 'volumetric' allocation which, would result showing no suffered question. however, declined adopt method applied 'relative market value method' allocating costs. This showed $421,537 pursuant order, held 'shall considered part service have heretofore determined.' On basis, found total $14,952,567, including federal taxes $185,599 proceeds 5.75% return ($3,280,317 base $57,048,988). Deducting $17,962,532 left excess over $3,000,000. accordingly ordered eliminating excess. Id., at 127. 5 Respondent 19(a) Act. stated objections Commission's expense claim that, were properly allocated, there resulting loss. complained further computation, effect, reduced 5.01%. At point did contend excluding invalid. Upon consideration application, denied modified new rates slight degree material here. 6 Tenth Circuit, court generally upheld It accepted computation fixed $421,537. However, held, despite action taken must added service. therefore reversed remanded cause proceedings. 209 F.2d 717. After reargument, reaffirmed position. 732. Recognizing importance relation judicial administrative orders, granted certiorari cross-petition. 347 1009, 74 866, 98 1133; 818, 30; 884, 122. 28 1254(1), 1254(1); 831—832, 717r(b), 717r(b). Act prescribes explicitly procedure followed person seeking limits scope follows: 8 'Sec. 19. (a) Any * aggrieved (Federal Power) proceeding party apply within thirty days after issuance shall set forth specifically ground or grounds upon based. brought unless thereon. 9 '(b) (of Appeals) reasonable failure so do. *' (Emphasis supplied.) 717r(a) (b), 717r(a, b). first contends did, substance, object validity thus requirements 19(b). We find, objected exclusion merely approving required 'proper allocation' costs, chosen 'proper.' unsuccessfully alternative allocation, eliminate passing contentions, assumed, computed excluded Respondent's gave notice attacking condition. true treatment income taxes, ultimate effect reduce net one These bids higher recomputation operations, claims 11 second contention although 19(b) barred merger, Appeals, nothing precludes itself raising, considering sustaining sponte. error appears face statute. Section bringing previously then expressly rehearing. As precluded when, without prior presented directly aggrieved,4 cannot assumed Congress intended permit consider circumstances, because aggrieved. reflects policy exhaust remedies review. allow intervene here own motion seriously undermine purpose explicit come Commission. 12 10(e) Administrative Procedure does require different result.5 purports strengthen, rather than weaken, principle requiring exhaustion Senate Committee, recommending bill said: 13 'A wilfully fail his then, agency become operative, either secure suspension belated appeal agency, resort having given opportunity determine raised. If he fails time-honored doctrine remedies. S.Doc. 248, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 289, n. 21. 14 Furthermore, 10, terms, inapplicable 'so far (1) statutes (as here) preclude review', applies situations issue 'presented,' done interpretation general terms hold they repeal procedures 'We recognized more few decisions, statutes, orderly good administration proceedings while correction raise issues reviewable courts.' United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, 344 33, 35—37, 73 67, 68 69, 97 54. See also, Riss & Co. States, 341 907, 71 620, 1345; Wong Yang Sung McGrath, 339 70 445, 94 616; Capital Transit Co., 338 286, 291, 115, 117, 93; Unemployment Compensation Territory Alaska Aragan, 329 143, 155, 67 245, 251, 91 136. 16 apparent where, here, calls technical knowledge experience usually possessed judges. decisions involve those difficult problems policy, accounting, economics special go into utility making. reviewing inherent suitability comparable District 17 suggests limit prevents effectively 'end result' Hope 320 591, 64 281, 88 333. accept argument wipe out single stroke Not acceptance contrary statute, recognize fundamental function engage 18 Returning language 19, authority, reverse overruling production purposes. reversal, redetermining previous conduct it. Cf. Hancock 324 774, 778 780, 65 1003, 1005—1006, 89 1357. 1950, proceeding. many facets difference existed merits. 119. important factor securing finding interest. page 1006. approved condition, other hand, ever since. now allowed attack officially retaining time all benefits. impropriety rendered twofold attempted separate charges absorb them, 5.01% unreasonable confiscatory, do sustain charge. 20 judgment reversed. 21 Reversed. 22 HARLAN took case. 717r, 717r. provisions (b) are body 470 S.Ct., infra. related litigation presented, see (Canadian Commission), 581, 829, 1206; Colorado-Wyoming 626, 850, 1235. letter June 'in keep payer meeting deficiency could provide deficit determining rates. words, stockholders take risk whether prices will down.' '(i) authorization herein effectuating acquisition operation Canadian's properties facilities express understanding if, carrying conditions transaction whereby rights liquid hydrocarbons place Southwestern Development receive 50 percent gross sale revenue received Fritsch Gasoline Plant Texoma allocable exceed amounts payable transaction, case effective inquiry Colorado's customers consumers.' F.P.C., 780. '* Petitioner, moreover, failed producing gathering base. included.' Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 635, 649, 650—651, 821, 828, 1241. National Labor Relations Board Cheney Cal. Lumber 327 385, 388—389, 66 553, 554, 90 739; Seven-Up 344, 287, 377, preserve treated bar 10. Except (2) law committed discretion. '(e) Scope review.—So necessary decide relevant law, interpret constitutional statutory provisions, meaning applicability action. (A) compel unlawfully withheld unreasonably delayed; (B) unlawful aside action, findings, conclusions arbitrary, capricious, abuse discretion, otherwise accordance law; right, power, privilege, immunity; (3) jurisdiction, limitations, short right; (4) observance (5) unsupported substantial evidence subject sections reviewed record hearing provided statute; (6) unwarranted facts extent trial de novo court. making foregoing determinations whole portions thereof cited party, due account rule prejudicial error.' 60 243—244, 1009(e), 1009(e).

Category: 7