Document: 345 U.S. 295 73 S.Ct. 706 97 L.Ed. 1020 UNITED STATESv.PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA et al. MINERAL COUNTY, NEVADA v. PUBLIC Nos. 205, 206. Argued Jan. 14, 1953. Decided April 6, Rehearing Denied May 18, See 961, 935. [Syllabus from pages 295-296 intentionally omitted] No. 205: Walter J. Cummings, Jr., Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. Boris H. LaKusta, San Francisco, Cal., respondents. 206: L. E. Blaisdell, Hawthorne, Nev., Henry W. Coil, Riverside, Justice REED delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondent California Electric Power Company produces electricity in California, partially by hydroelectric projects licensed under Part I Federal Act, 41 Stat. 1063, as amended Title II Public Utility Act 1935, 49 838, 16 U.S.C. § 791a seq., U.S.C.A. and markets greater portion it, subject to respondent Utilities Commission's authority, that state. The jurisdictional dispute which is our present concern relates only certain power sales Navy Department Mineral County, Nevada, consumption there. This power, following production, transmitted at 55,000 volts Company's Mill Creek substation about 25 miles border, on its own lines. There it figuratively taken over their lines same high voltage where stepped down local distribution consumption. Navy's used ammunition depot, largely official industrial operations; between 15% 29%, however, distributed private households enterprises tenants low-cost housing project nearby. These are metered individually each purchaser billed according his use. purchased County all resold consumers, with exception minor line losses 2 contract purchase was negotiated 1943, provided termination 60-day notice; County's entered into 1945 a stated period three years. In 1947 applied State Commission general rate increase which, after hearings represented, granted. Thereafter, terminated failed renew giving notice intention apply new schedule these sales. Both purchasers demurred, reapplied ruling applicability particular operations. After some early state exploratory hearings, Commission, February 15, 1950, issued an order show cause why rates were not exclusive federal jurisdiction. Thus joined, issues heard both agencies joint proceeding March 20 21, 1950. eventually decided favor asserted authority.1 supporting denied review Supreme Court January 1952, thus affirming holding, while likewise approved Appeals Ninth Circuit, Co 199 F.2d As question concerning raised, certiorari granted, 344 810, 37, bring record here proceedings 28 1257(3), 1257(3). I. 3 we think obtains, Act. applies 'to transmission electric energy interstate commerce sale wholesale commerce'. 201(b). Regulation such sales—other types authority connection operations granted other sections—rests §§ 205(a)2 206(a).3 preliminary issue whether fall within concept commerce, initially depends, can be shortly disposed of, Powell United States Cartridge Co., 339 497, 509—515, 70 755, 761—765, 94 1017, firmly established includes transportation public property, irrelevance fact this across boundary owned purchasers, may seen Jersey Central & Light Co. 319 61, 69, 71, 63 953, 957, 958, 87 1258, Illinois Natural Gas Service 314 498, 62 384, 86 371. 4 most serious contentions pressed opposition application II, arise self-limiting statement therein extend those matters regulation States.'4 So respondents contend jurisdiction begins regulatory ends, point I, 20, contention limitation facts case. Section provides when sold includes, 5 'shall enter or foreign * service any licensee person, corporation, association purchasing use shall reasonable customer *; whenever directly concerned has commission enforce requirements section unable agree through properly constituted authorities services hereby conferred upon regulate so much therefor constitute commerce.' 6 Nevada have powers. And assume, though Government asserts otherwise, orders disagreed.5 Respondents satisfying ousting regulation. short, they contend—what first blush appear anomalous—that prohibited originated federally We do agree. 7 Admittedly, contemplated well be, indicated congressional hearings,6 Congress quite frankly chose bulk projects. fact, contrary view would been almost astonishing historical proposition, neither large utilities developed during last thirty years, nor concomitant desirability regulation, could foreseen 1920. Long-range then adequately developed, had various undergone integration centralized systems later came about.7 assume Congress, policy judgment, accepted adapted substantial tradition utility production 8 But there no evidence done firm intent settled states essentially national. For whatever views draftsmen efficacy national finally determined until Court's Attleboro Steam 273 83, 47 294, 71 549. decision followed Water seven case what unquestionably become fixed premise constitutional law but clear 1920, Commerce Clause forbade rates. held 'in quantities, distributing companies resale consumers'. U.A. page 89, 296. reiterated holding Pennsylvania 252 23, 40 279, 64 434, direct consumers matter agency importing either interested commission. 9 seek escape doctrine, pointing involved produced They admit absent Part, exclusively determine result. But, say, creates exception, language did reach, aegis coordinated alleged 'conferred jurisdiction' states. 10 declared forbidden burden commerce. act specifically permission exercise articles moving otherwise immune. Re Rahner, 140 545, 560—562, 11 865, 868—869, 35 572.8 cannot bear interpretation; establish source significant factor determining applied. It different few unique statutes heretofore considered, 'subjecting future prohibitions,' James Clark Distilling Western Maryland R. 242 311, 326, 37 180, 185, 61 power. Its indicates consideration desire alter limits imposed Clause; merely invoked unless conditions inability obtain.9 obviously based recognition barrier, rather assumes exist—state reach resale; sole possible failure empower Nor soundly said charged responsibility regulating government property. U.S.Const., Art. 4, 3, cl. 2. discussion 1920 enacted full appreciation export import resale. required added provision rates, agree, act.10 arrangement water block II. note 13, infra. 12 actions reflect interpretation 20. interest light opinion, nothing decisive respondent's contentions. 1929, Senator Couzens introduced amendment pending bill, S. 71st Cong., 1st Sess., communications. amendment, 'Power' defined, 47(a)(4), include energy, 'whether Act.' bill referred Committee, took final action.11 next year, Committee S.Res. 80, purported breakdown investigative powers constituted. 28, reported F.P.C. Ann.Rep.119, introduced.12 argued that, result Attleboro, wholesale-for-resale displaced agreement received approval compact.13 13 positive action field, course, 1935. sweep statute wholly inconsistent examined legislative history; purport clear. intended 'fill gap'—the phrase repeated many times debates contemporary literature—left interpreted prohibiting control resale, armed precisely power.14 indicate Congress' conception States' disability gave electricity. unqualified statements opposite construction, find explained time again empowering once spoken one conditioned having steam generators nonlicensed dams.15 14 ambiguous reference 'matters States', 201(a), if more available work with. However, proof mind 20-type limiting clause protecting affairs, including intrastate interstate-for-consumption sales: 'Facilities solely one's excluded.' Hearings, House Interstate Foreign Commerce, H.R.5423, 74th Sess. 385.16 mentioned distinct affirmation sales-for-resale apparently recognize be. indeed further reasons rejecting respondents' construction 201(a). nature generating facilities, place, functional significance regulation; considerations lead enact similarly applicable generated Secondly, literature divided remained Attleboro.17 purpose permitting especially dearth matter.18 15 conclude limitations 201(a) cannot, to, preserve borders. Even conceived peculiarly limited statutory wording '(e)xceptions primary grant strictly construed', 331 682, 690—691, 67 1482, 1487, 91 1742, 1(b) 717(b). 'Production' 'distribution' elsewhere excluded jurisdiction, 201(b); relied originally drafted declaration 'policy,' rewording succinct form unaccompanied 'mention (of) change substance'. 77, referring H.R.Rep.No.1318, p. 26. 'It nullify specific even seems broadly expressed purpose.' Connecticut 324 515, 527, 65 749, 754, 89 1150. To conceive now bench mark speculate support. Attleboro. read together. latter left licensees' former Discussion problem reflected recent cases support conclusion. Especially litigation arising designed coordinate constitutionally Hope 320 591, 609—610, 281, 291, 88 333; Panhandle Pipe Line 332 507, 514—515, 68 190, 193—194, 92 128; 1742; 506, 387, 371.19 17 turn definitional raised respondents, relating County. this: 201 extends 'sale Subsection (d) states: 18 'The term wholesale' means person resale.' 19 3(4)20 equates 'person' 'individual corporation', 3(3)21 excludes municipalities defined 3(7)22 scope term. argue neatly decisively sections indirect scheme whole. Sections 306 313(a), look way. provide complaints petitions rehearing municipalities. 3(7) contemplates users distributors accept thwart provisions: political subdivisions aggrieved selling them satisfy 21 conscious coordination 3(3), (4) 201(d) history. True, simultaneously enacted, and, interpolation word occurred 3(3) 3(4) definitions existence 2796, passed Senate House, June alteration insistence House. occurring before transmission, ibid., 201(f), stemmed, covered time. Report is, think, redefinition section: 'A 'wholesale' transaction mean H.R.Rep. 1318, 8. conclude, therefore, attached substance addition 'person,' intend Indeed sought 201(d).23 22 A third factor, history 201(d), rejection courts. Three circuits just recently so,24 long assertion probably risen dignity 'policy.'25 often sympathy administrative interpretations this. Cf. American Trucking Ass'ns, 310 534, 549, 60 1059, 1067, 84 1345. 23 Where questioned clear, courts, follow direction interpretation. words ambiguous, judiciary method literal end completely variance statute. Texas Pacific Abilene Cotton Oil 204 426, 27 350, 51 553; Feres States, 340 135, 153, 95 152; International Longshoremen's Warehousemen's Union Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 237, 243, 72 235, 239, 96 275; Johansen 343 427, 432, 849, 853, 1051. here, since judgment aim realities compel reject plea similar reasons, 205 'person.' III. 24 claim 'local distribution' 201(b), 'for resale' because contracts much, insubstantial. made facilities supplied current subdivided individual consumers.26 question—whether entire amount County—requires extended discussion. Certainly concrete outside thereof invokes outset, despite traveled along route 'commingled' seller consumed purchaser-distributor. argues exchanged parties order, irrespective not. proposition relies similarity 414, 419, 843, 845, 1042.27 must sold, up locally. impossibility separating patent. case, attach distributor's occasional unpredictable nonjurisdictional 26 There, 'interstate Here, purposes need decide somewhat 'commingling'—of purchaser—requires For, assuming arguendo proportionally limited, hold us does set findings justifying By statute, 'sales resale,' 'but sale.' problem, then, applying suggested interpretation, falls category resale'—whether involving volume buyer resells others; determinant delineation 516—517, 194—195, 128. Assuming theory, turn, separate covering identifiable. will permit finding. enginerring accurate measurement two billing period. negotiations, bodies, short 'sales' themselves separate, terms require fix grant.28 attention directed towards matter. ripe opportunity perfect consider problem. Reversed. BLACK, concurring. 29 sustained Commission. Circuit consequently concur reversal California's holding. 30 JACKSON, 31 should readily analysis instead psychoanalysis Congress. When history, witnesses mind, put ourselves place majority Congressmen impression them. Never Congressman, am handicapped weird endeavor. That process me creation 32 forego repeating practice Schwegmann Bros. Calvert Distillers 341 395, 745, 1035. out dramatic demonstration evil it. Neither counsel who access material today. Counsel bar, confirmed letter, he tried without success four months obtain He obtained days argument, Washington library City Library University largest office Francisco supply interlibrary loan request refused. attempted Harvard Law School Library, advised 'our rules kind sent loan.' 33 relying inaccessible condemned. Some remember vividly argument Panama Refining Ryan, 293 388, 55 241, 79 446, obliged Executive Orders proceeded below repealed another Order deposited Department. No regularized system publication established. Copies nominal cost writing Having discovered error, brought At Court, led Brandeis, subjected raking fire criticism make form. refused pass aspects establishment Register.* 34 Today's marks regression modern tendency. pulls law, dark hidden, fog little found. Legislative usual vague than called interpret. If civil liability punish crime, protest strenuously. operation only. like legislation, repeal it—as number past. therefore unanimously members experience. 36 FRANKFURTER. shed JACKSON underpinning makes unwilling share resting underpinning. thing construe comprehensive context scheme, gloss authorized speak reports floor. very extrapolate meaning surmises speculation free-wheeling utterances, disregard chosen express purpose. 38 Were confined mere text legislation construe, authoritative elucidation relevant materials furnish, compelled fusing, does, 847, too tenuous. saying mindful Preoccupation precludes independent pursuit tributaries search followed. constrained leave doubts 50 Cal. P.U.C. P.U.R.(N.S.) 359, respectively. doubt effect conflicting orders, reflecting wisdom review. permitted, require, higher distinction, abstract attraction, misses considering outset all. prices petitioners pay irrelevant unlikely well. ordered cease charging filed so, constituting determinative foreclose submission schedule, rate-making procedures body. CFR 35.3, 35.5, 35.20. 205(a): 'All charges made, demanded, regulations affecting pertaining reasonable'. 206(a): 'Whenever hearing motion complaint, rate, charge, classification, observed, charged, collected rule, practice, classification unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory preferential, thereafter observed force, order.' 'Section 201. (a) business transmitting affected interest, necessary States.' 201(b) states, vein, 'deprive lawful exercised exportation line.' certainly go beyond noted authority. true, language, also appears mind. Rather, Cong.Rec. 10527, validity exported. Compare introduced, idem. Calendar 451, construed. Safe Harbor 221, 235. 20's never footnotes 19, Our 1042, settle issue, judicially discussed rarely. Power, 65th 2d 65. was, accident caused simultaneous passage Holding Act; mutual 79th see passim, strikingly realization failed, giantism company Davis, Influence Trade Investigations, Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 21. Leisy Hardin, 135 100, 681, Adams Express Com. Kentucky, 238 824, 59 1267; Rosenberger 241 48, 510, 880; 326; Whitfield Ohio, 297 431, 56 532, 80 778; Kentucky Whip Collar 299 334, 57 277, 282, 81 270. Wilson 313, 121 (alcoholic beverages), Webb-Kenyon 699, 122, 122 (same); 193, (oleomargarine); Reed Amendment National Appropriation 1917, 39 1069 beverages); Hawes-Cooper 45 1084, 60, 60; Ashurst-Sumners 494, 1761, 1762, 1762 (convict-made goods). 62—66, 95—97, illuminting regard. O. C. Merrill presented Secretaries Agriculture, Interior War. length proposed solution desirable. 'if it; doing now.' Ibid., 97. draft far alone.' 62. suggestion tht permission; explicitly ignorance needed: 'I know come courts Constitution, vested Government, wished it.' Doremus: might exercise, or, state.' Merrill: my satisfactorily handled several better them.' 47(h) amendments 'abridge regulate, extent passed, commerce,' 'substantial number' 265. 'In character illustrated (direct consumers), supra, (the Chief Commission; Decision 1929) already requisite situation conditional exist, full. part specified remainder matters. all; acquire jointly agreements themselves, except authorization hereinafter discussed; absence authorization, kind, forth Commission.' Ann.Rep. 123 124. went 'permissive' 127—129. 'compact' adopted Corp. Cir., 124 800. footnote 16, function perhaps revolutionary gathered comparing substantially attempted, least 1930. 79, 262. accountants, whom evaluation 38. Colonel Tyler, Engineer, expressly alluded effective, electricity, dams. 195. theorize small admixture defeat commenting 305 officials licensees deleted 'such operating public-utility provisions event.' 31. 1725, 250—251; 26—27; H.R. 5423, pp. 436, 521—530, 1639, 1677 1680, 2143, 2169; H.R.Rep.No.1903, 74; 8431, 8442, 8444, 10377—10378. '(T)his proviso clause) pertinent instant controversy contrlo single relation compact Constitution.' 179 179, 187. Hartford 131 953; 129 183. Scott, Control Transmission, Proc. Acad. Pol. Sci. Note, Col.L.Rev. 1171, force cite permissive On hand, Arneson, Utilities, 66 U.S.L.Rev. 133, Updegraf, Extension Iowa L.Rev. 369, states' wiped out. Actually, real resport Forty percent Nation's Statistics, 1920—1940, VIII—IX. 12.3% total sources, 7.8% capacity. (Letter Leon Fuquay, Secretary, Edward G. Hudon, Assistant Librarian, 1953.) curious special type minimal fraction country's 239—243. not, itself, confer commissions discuss muchbriefed met. See, 800; Id., 179; 1042; notes supra. "Person' corporation'. 3(4). "Corporation' joint-stock company, partnership, association, trust, organized group persons, incorporated receiver receivers, trustee trustees foregoing. 'municipalities' defined'. 3(3). "Municipality' city, county, irrigation district, drainage subdivision competent laws carry developing, transmitting, utilizing, power'. 3(7). evidence, exclusion producing intended. instance, Devane, Solicitor time, testified follows Committee: 'Mr. Devane: (The Act) publicly plant. 'Senator Hastings: Why drawn way? feel province prepare undertake municipal, State, utilities.' 256. Commissioner Seavey recorded interpretation: Pettingill: Commissioner, you moment ago construed Tennessee Valley Authority municipal plant State; correct? 'Commissioner Seavey: Yes; understanding bill. Because, said, municipality governmental body? particularly excluded, belief agency, Now suppose acquires purchase, common stock privately organized, actually owner plant, although privately, corporation. done, competing locality municipality, nation? controlled operations, say no, (sic)' Hearings 397—398. 201(f). 206; Wisconsin D.C.Cir., 183, Wisconsin-Michigan 197 472. Kansas E.P.C. 536; Otter Tail 134; Los Angeles Nevada-California 104; 132; Baum, 61—62. meaninglessly Northwestern 327. cited brief indicating claimed virtue being Respondent's brief, ex rel. Chapman 191 796. note, though, regard 'No person' rehearing. ignore point, Secretary petition 'party aggrieved,' 313(b). 799—800. press again, petitioner, representative interests 'aggrieved' lack standing. Br.F.P.C.Nos. 29, 1952 Term, opinion. Champman 156, 609. East Ohio Tax 283 465, 499, 75 1171; 338 464, 469, 266, 269, 268. 206, 209. certiorari, 495, 934, 794, complete Penn controlled. still formative stage. Colorado 185 357; Hastings Kansas-Nebraska 98 P.U.R. (N.S.) 1. detail Jackson, Struggle Judicial Supremacy, 89—91.

Category: 9