Court Opinion

ID: 9446770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:17:49.235553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:46.323380
License: Public Domain

JONES, Circuit Judge.
This is a companion case to the four cases decided today which are styled Sun Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission, 5 Cir., 266 F.2d 222; Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Federal Power Commission, 5 Cir., 266 F.2d 235; Hunt Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission, 5 Cir., 266 F.2d 232; and Magnolia Petroleum Company v. Federal Power Commission, 5 Cir., 266 F.2d 234.
The factual situation is here different from the other cases in that, when Richardson’s filing of the new contract as an initial rate schedule was rejected and his application for a new certificate was likewise rejected he appealed from the Commission’s orders. He did not, as did the petitioners in the companion cases, make an alternative filing of the new contract as a rate change. This difference does not require the application of any different principles than those upon which our decision was based in Sun Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission, supra. For the reasons assigned in the opinion in that case, the *234orders of the Federal Power Commission are
Affirmed.