Document: 358 U.S. 103 79 S.Ct. 194 3 L.Ed.2d 153 UNITED GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, Petitioner,v.MEMPHIS LIGHT, AND WATER DIVISION et al. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. MEMPHIS TEXAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION and Southern Natural Gas Company, Petitioners, Nos. 23, 25, 26. Argued Oct. 20, 21, 1958. Decided Dec. 8, Rehearing Denied Jan. 19, 1959. See 942, 344. Solicitor General J. Lee Rankin, Washington, D.C., for petitioner Federal Power Commission. [Syllabus intentionally omitted] Mr. Ralph M. Carson, New York City, other petitioners. Messrs. George E. Morrow, Memphis, Tenn., Reuben Goldberg, respondents. [Amicus Curiae Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 We review a judgment Court Appeals District Columbia Circuit which directed Commission to reject certain rate schedules natural gas filed with it by United Pipe Line Company (United) under § 4(d) Act 1938, 52 Stat. 821, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 717 seq., U.S.C.A. seq. 2 United, regulated pipeline company, supplies Texas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas), (Southern Mississippi Valley (Mississippi),1 number long-term service agreements made prior September 30, 1955, each contains following pricing provision:2 'All hereunder shall be paid Buyer Seller's Rate Schedule (the appropriate schedule designation is inserted here), or any effective superseding schedules, on file This agreement in all respects subject applicable provisions such Terms Conditions attached thereto are reference part hereof.' (Italics supplied.) On proceeding Act, new together supporting data, increasing its prices November 1, amounts estimated yield total additional annual revenues $9,978,000 from sales here involved also Commission's jurisdiction. Exercising powers 4(e) ordered hearing propriety rates, and, except those relating resale industrial use only, suspended their effectiveness April 1956, maximum period suspension authorized statute.3 Thereafter Gas, Mississippi, others claiming an interest proceedings were permitted intervene, February 6, commenced taking evidence lawfulness United's rates 'just reasonable' standard 4(e). 4 27, this announced decision Co. Mobile Service Corp., 350 332, 76 373, 100 L.Ed. was held that could not escape contract obligation furnish at single specified price term years unilaterally filing increased Act. Following respondents present case first time moved constituted attempt change terms Southern, ran afoul our Mobile. Construing these effect constituting undertakings purchasers pay 'going' established accordance procedures prescribed refused filings. It distinguished ground there fixed supplied contractually foreclosed changing without purchaser. 16 F.P.C. P.U.R.3d 279. 5 The reversed. Accepting purposes interpretation agreements, nonetheless lacked 'jurisdiction' consider schedules. court regarded establishing applies only changes whose specific amount has been mutually agreed upon between seller purchaser, where purchaser so agreed, can effected action 5(a) Act.4 Since set forth had customers, therefore no jurisdiction proceed examine them, accordingly filings should have rejected. 102 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 250 F.2d 402. granted certiorari because claim misinterpreted Mobile, suggestion seriously frustrates proper administration 355 938, 78 429, 420. 6 apparent misconceived import before required 10.7 cents per MCF (thousand cubic feet) 10 years. contained provision different rate, during agreement. argued gave right abrogate unqualified increase will 4(d), approval In rejecting contention unlike Interstate Commerce 49 'evinces purpose private contracts such,' did 'empower companies unilaterally,' respect stood position than they would absence pages 338, 340, 343, 378, 379, 380, 373. bound itself throughout particular price, we abrogated Commission, exercise paramount regulatory authority 5(a). Ibid., 344—345, 381. 7 now us, construed viewed decision, vitally view customers life but what amounted current rate. Contractually left free time, subject, course, limitations circumstances nothing suggests entitled them contrary said (350 page 380): 8 '* * specifically limited rate-making possess Act: establish ex parte, will, offered prospective customers; fix contract, mutual agreement, customer. No more necessary give full meaning consistent this, means simply change—neither unilateral parte nor agreed-upon contract—can company notice *' 9 erred reading limiting (e) instances parties 'reformed' contract. reason unavailable bargained away unilaterally, does apply whether pursuant Moreover, find scheme justify restrictive application Appeals' gives (e). Section 4(c) requires every initially 'sale manner affect relate *.' provides giving 'in finding keeping open public inspection.5 And authorizes changed rate.6 record us affirmatively shows issue complied duties sections impose it, even remotely implies buyer.7 11 important indeed decisive difference one party asserting somehow contractual undertaking, whereas seeks assert, rights expressly reserved makes plain '§ face indicates otherwise valid cannot put into Commission.' 339—340, 378. corollary proposition fact 'otherwise valid' light relationship through notes determined may 4(d). 380. perceive tenable basis distinction similar explicitly permits it. 12 Thus properly understood, establishes case. As said, 'The initial rate-changing remain undefined unaffected Act.' like unregulated commodity, instance unless undertaken do so. comes play (1) imposing procedural requirement timely change, (2) changes, (3) authorizing exclusively use, suspend five-month thereafter require posting refund bond pending determination changed. (See (e), note 3, supra.) 13 seems Congress, drafting statute, expressing conviction protection consumers excessive gas, manifesting concern legitimate interests financial stability gas-consuming vital stake. Business reality demands precluded law product whenever economically intake outgo balance; procurement vast sums maintenance expansion systems equity debt financing become most difficult, if impossible. surely Congress take account framing industry, cf. Hope Co., 320 591, 603, 64 281, 88 333, think preserving 'integrity' arrangements supply 344, 380 (subject course overriding Commission), providing earliest effectuation permissible review. 14 What disposes question anything forbids There remains power make manner. found intended, unnecessary decide question. both dilatory remand consideration issue, involves matters peculiarly within area special competence hardly aided further examination Appeals. Indeed neither side alternatively, asking posture. After scrutinizing satisfied amply supported factually legally. necessity embark detailed discussion various contentions parties, none appears overlooked misapprehended sufficient say typical 'tariff-and-service' contemplated Order No. 144, 18 CFR 154.1 seq.;8 until connected industry thought sort procedures;9 respondents' sole genesis mistaken Beyond interpreted hostile Act.10 For reasons given hold error concluding statute. 17 Reversed. CLARK took cases. 19 DOUGLAS, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE BLACK concur, dissenting. 20 marks, I think, retreat holding facts are, precedents. But seem me fundamental. sought Here seller's Commission.1 21 essence ruling words: 'the empower contracts.' That emphasized over again especially when bilateral permissible: 22 'to customer.' 23 Like judges Appeals, meant reason, thought, why control slight. supervision restricted evidenced two elements 4(e): first, five months; second, whatsoever 'for only.'2 24 told making controlling 'effective' selling alone chooses 4. 25 insuperable difficulties view. buyer consent file. whatever rate; establishment construction tariff (see Great Northern R. Merchants' Elevator 259 285, 290, 42 477, 66 943) resolve system imposed industry. 26 adopted dire consequences. shambles far consumer concerned; ones designed protect.3 sacrifices cause who exploit field. Now agency powerless prevent after 30-day waiting period, immediately fixes. absent. If ultimately just reasonable, victory illusory one, administrative doubtful receive benefit refunds.4 increases unjustified collected order setting aside increase. Even catches up high strikes down, promises fleeting effect. unfettered discretion raise suspended.5 27 construe produce destructive allow embrace 'rates upon' customer, stated case, applying fear failure turns real regulation companies. imagine passed envisaged tragic result consumers; driven unambiguous distributing purchases Gas. Respondent Memphis Light, Water Division, City engaged distribution direct relations United. However, obligated reimburse latter's cost acquired Originally seven quoted text. assumed contain equivalent provision, replaced containing very shortly issue. Sections National read follows: 4(d): 'Unless orders, natural-gas (filed) charge, classification, service, rule, regulation, thereto, thirty days' public. Such inspection stating plainly then force go good shown, requiring herein provided specifying published.' 'Whenever authority, either complaint State, municipality, State commission, own initiative complaint, once, answer formal pleading reasonable notice, enter concerning service; thereon, delivering affected thereby statement writing suspension, operation defer longer months beyond effect: Provided, sale only; hearings, completed goes effect, orders initiated effective. concluded expiration motion filing, proposed Where charges thus effective, may, order, bond, approved keep accurate accounts detail received increase, behalf paid, completion refund, interest, portion justified. At involving charge increased, burden proof show naturalgas questions preference same speedily possible.' always taken statute rates. 5(a): classification demanded, observed, charged, connection transportation practice, affecting unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, preferential, determine observed force, order: however, currently company; decrease existing unlawful, lowest rates.' supra. A majority below limitation imported fend against 'debilitating 5(a)' possible reserve avoid delay stringent requirements utilizing procedures. 82, 407, 3. Apart approach assume negative issue—whether intended permitted, concerned, securing customer pointed out consistently §§ equally 'stringent.' FPC, Thirty-fifth Annual Report (1955), 106; Thirty-fourth (1954), Thirty-third (1953), 99. When became 4(c). Schedules form extremely lengthy, unwieldy, unsatisfactory difficult competitors, ascertain discriminatory unreasonable. regulations conversion 'tariff-and-service-agreement' system, promulgated October 1948 144. Under tariff-and-service-agreement term, rather refers general applicability noteworthy 144 contemplates 'privilege' 154.38(d)(3). Between date three (one respondent here) dismiss permit although some 600 period. Respondents argue 'effective rate' clause must referring proceeding, unreasonable buyer-signatories authorize 'industrial' appear relatively minor factor; entirely superfluous since matter incorporated Pacific St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Cir., 1925, 359, appeal dismissed 269 535, 46 105, 70 399; Market Street Electric D.C.N.D.Cal.1925, 633, 271 691, 487, 1154, wholly destroyed pass inconceivable, unlikely, buyers willing entered practice tariff-and-service form. From included contracts; rather, individual agreements. Hence part: Com'n 610, 333. Protection done occupying field States barred. H.R.Rep. 709, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2. 1953 report recognized collection higher while ultimate loss revenues, unsatisfactory, burdensome, presents many problems well utilities problem impounded funds event denied time-consuming expensive.' Report, 1953, 101. amicus curiae, 'By legally available expedient another relief obtained effectively nullified 30 days obtained.'

Category: 7