Court Opinion

ID: 9422105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:01:19.421565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:34.390249
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Harlan,
whom Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Stewart join,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The Commission’s denial of a certificate for the transportation of this natural gas rested on a combination of three determinations: (1) the inferior “end use” of the gas, that is its use for the alleviation of air pollution resulting from the burning of coal in the Waterside Plant of Consolidated Edison in New York City; (2) the effect of purchases such as this in enhancing future field prices of natural gas; and (3) the likely pre-emption of future pipeline transportation capacity resulting" from such purchases.
Though I regard the matter as less clear than the Court does, I agree that the legislative history of the 1942 amendments to the Natural Gas Act supports the Commission’s power to consider inferior end use as a factor in denying Transco a transportation certificate for the gas in question. However, I cannot agree that the premises on which the Commission rested its conclusions as to field prices and the pre-emption of transportation capacity are adequate to justify affirmance of its denial of a certificate.
As will be shown, those conclusions were bottomed almost entirely on the proposition that most, if not all, direct purchases, at least those of substantial magnitude, would be against the public interest. Since I believe that *32the denial of a certificate in this case had to be premised on factors present in this particular transaction, I think the proper course is to remand the case to the Commission for further consideration on proper postulates.
At the outset, it is important to note the procedural context of our review. In denying a petition for rehearing, the Commission made clear that the “end use” factor was neither of “decisive” nor of “determinative” importance ; inferiority of end use was but one of several factors which together, and not individually, justified denial of this certificate in the Commission’s view. These other factors failing, as they do in my opinion, the denial of the certificate cannot stand.
I.
Premises of the Commission’s Denial.
I think it manifest that the Commission weighed against certification the fact that the sale to Consolidated Edison was direct to a consumer and hence not subject to normal Commission regulation of sales to pipeline companies for resale.1 The Trial Examiner referred to “The Staff’s opposition” as based, among other reasons, on the fact that:
“The proposal is obviously an attempt to evade the jurisdiction of the Commission over the sale of nat*33ural gas for use in the large consuming centers of the country and thus may be contrary to the public interest; . . .”
And the Examiner referred to the Staff’s argument “that this sort of non-jurisdictional activity by Consolidated Edison should be halted as an example to others who may similarly attempt to avoid regulation in this way.” The same argument was repeated to the Commission itself.
That the Commission adopted this approach of viewing this particular sale as but a facet of the broader direct-sale problem is clear from the reasons it states, 21 F. P. C. 138, as weighing towards denial of the certificate. Each of the considerations of effect on field prices and distribution of field supply is worded in the plural. The Commission throughout its report speaks as if it is presently forbidding access to the producer in the field by any one except pipelines purchasing for resale. That it is not restricting itself to the denial of the particular transportation involved in the X-20 service but is instead only denying that service because of the adverse effects that would result from committing itself to regularly allowing direct purchases in the field by nonpipelines, is apparent from the following:
“[I]f we were to grant this request we would soon be confronted with many requests of the same general character ....

“How much more serious is that impact [of large demand on limited supply] when it is in the form of multiple bidders ....
“And how long the pipeline can continue to buy in competition with nonjurisdictional, large volume purchasers ... is at least a question.” Id., p. 141.
*34In its denial of a rehearing2 the Commission acknowledged that it considered the “adverse effects on the public” of granting this “and similar such authorizations” including “the effect of stimulating increased purchases of gas in the field by distributing companies in substitution for the present, prevalent types of interstate natural-gas services involving purchases and resales by natural-gas pipeline companies . . . Id., p. 399.3
It is clear, then, that the Commission was concerned with the adverse effects it felt characterized most sales to distributing companies or consumers, rather than with anything offensive about this particular sale (excepting of course the proposed end use). What were these adverse effects of all direct sales? Two are central to the *35Commission’s opinion. First, “the authorization of this and like proposals would pre-empt for this usage capacity which would otherwise be available to meet more urgent and widely beneficial public needs . . . 21 F. P. C., at 141.4 Second, there is the effect on field prices:
“The impact of large demand on relatively limited supply is certain enough to raise rates and field prices if only one bidder is bringing that demand to bear on the supply. How much more serious is that impact when it is in the form of multiple bidders, each attempting to reserve to itself-a firm supply. Inevitably, there would be upward pressure on rate levels in the fields. We do not believe we ought to encourage such when it is unnecessary. . . .” Ibid.
Thus, the Commission has quite evidently asserted a power to frown upon any transaction which does not take the form of a sale to a pipeline for resale: On that basis, it was in this case, and would hereafter be, unnecessary for the Commission to decide whether a particular sale to a consumer or distributing company results in a waste of jurisdictional resources or an unwarranted boosting of field prices. Since, in the Commission’s view, sales not to pipelines, as a class, generally have these unfortunate characteristics, it is sufficient that the particular transaction is one of that class. The Commission has made clear that it was the harms inherent in the form this sale took that weighed against the issuance of a transportation certificate, not the unfortunate effects of the transaction itself. I cannot agree that the Commission had discretion to adopt this position when it had available to it far less drastic alternatives.
*36II.
Postulates on Which the Commission Should Have Proceeded.
• Without purporting to exhaust the full reach of its discretion, the premises on which the Commission, in my view, should have proceeded will be now indicated. Basically, I think it was open to the Commission to decide whether the particular transportation service before it would tend to waste gas, unduly pre-empt pipeline capacity, or raise field prices. I think the Commission can properly assert this more limited power as an incident of its transportation certificating powers.5 It is quite true of course that Consolidated Edison need not have resorted to the Federal Power Commission if the purchase transaction had been possible without the interstate transportation of the gas in jurisdictional pipelines, since this was not a purchase of natural gas for resale. Note 1, supra. However, it does not follow that the Commission had to blind itself to the effects of the purchase and use of the gas when its authority to certificate the transportation of the gas was invoked. To recognize that the transaction was, as a practical matter, impossible without the use of jurisdictional facilities for the interstate trans*37portation of the purchased gas is to acknowledge that this transportation is as integral a part of the transaction as was the sale itself. Whether the adverse effect of the transaction be a waste of a scarce resource, or pre-emption of pipeline capacity, or a substantial boosting of field prices, the transportation is as responsible for the effects as is the original sale. I see no reason why the Commission must certify, as in accord with the “public convenience and necessity,” transportation which tends materially to further such undesirable results which are within the area of the Commission’s legitimate concern when it is considering the public convenience and necessity of certificating a jurisdictional sale.
Assuming that it is results only made possible by jurisdictional transportation that the Commission wishes to consider, an attempted distinction between transportation and sale certification proceedings simply obscures the important question: what undesirable results are envisioned by § 1 (b) to be the concern of the States and not the concern of the Federal Power Commission? We hold in this case that the economic waste of natural gas that might otherwise be available for jurisdictional transactions ending in superior uses is such a legitimate concern. Similar considerations pertain to the pre-emption of pipeline capacity. Note 4, supra. Finally, we have held in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 360 U. S. 378, that the Commission must consider the effect on field prices for future jurisdictional sales of an excessive purchase price. Asserting power to consider these effects does not involve assuming jurisdiction over matters that Congress has reserved to the States in § 1 (b), for it does not involve protecting citizens of either the producing or consuming State against harms that local regulatory bodies have the power to prevent. These effects being the legitimate concern of the Federal Power Commission, they are no less so in a certification proceeding for trans*38portation than in such a proceeding for the sale of natural gas. Each of these effects, if materially furthered by the transportation being considered, can properly be relied upon, on a case-by-case basis, in the denial of a transportation certificate.
III.
Deficiencies of the Commission's Report.
If, as I have argued, the Commission has power to decide on an adequate record to deny a transportation certificate in part because the gas to be transported is to be used for inferior purposes or because that gas was purchased at a price adversely affecting the prices of later jurisdictional sales, I do not think there is any basis for the Commission’s further claim of authority to consider as an adverse factor the mere fact that the sale was direct to a consumer or distributor. As to inferior end use or preemption of pipeline capacity, the latter being another aspect of the former, the invalidity of the Commission’s claim is easily established. Once the Commission has weighed against the grant of the certificate the fact that it results in economic waste there is nothing added by the circumstance that it is also a direct sale to a consumer and the Commission’s belief that most of such sales result in economic waste.
The Commission’s consideration of the impact on field prices is more refined, although no more solidly grounded. The Commission did not merely consider that the price of these sales would be unregulatable and argue that therefore all sales to consumers or distributors must be forbidden. So it is not a complete answer to repeat what has just been said about the Commission’s consideration of inferior “end use” and pipeline pre-emption — that those factors can be fully considered on a case-by-case basis. The Commission passed beyond the possible problem of *39unregulatable prices to an economic argument, namely, that increasing even the number of theoretically regulatable bidders for gas in the field must, as a practical matter, create a difficult-to-control-and-regulate upward pressure on field prices. I consider reasonable the economics of the Commission’s position,6 but unreasonable its finding of statutory authority for the Draconian solution it proposes.
In my opinion the Commission cannot attempt to protect its legitimate interest in lower field prices by denying sale or transportation certificates to any arbitrarily chosen group of purchasers. Such whimsy is not contemplated by the statute. Is there, then, a justifying basis for discriminating against purchasers other than pipelines purchasing for resale? It cannot be the fact that the use these purchasers propose is often inferior, for the Commission can consider this factor when the occasion arises. It cannot be the fact that the effect on field prices is worse, for prices paid by both pipelines and other purchasers can be considered by the Commission when passing upon the public interest either in a sale-for-resale or in a transportation certificate proceeding. I can find no justifying basis for the distinction sought to be drawn by the Commission between pipelines and others.
To the contrary, the discrimination against nonpipeline purchasers flouts the statutory structure by permitting *40the Commission to exercise greater regulatory power over transactions with one non jurisdictional aspect (the direct sale) than the Commission has over transactions of which both aspects (sale-for-resale and transportation) are jurisdictional. Moreover, to recognize the discrimination against direct sales that the Commission proposes in order to reduce the upward price pressure resulting from increased numbers of bidders, is to ignore the fact that the statute contemplates and provides regulation for the use of pipelines both as wholly transportation or carrier facilities. There is no indication that this “carrier” function of pipelines was to be limited to carrying for producers who would then sell in the State of destination. It also properly extends to carrying for and to wholesalers or consumers in the State of destination.7
These, then, in my opinion are the considerations which require a holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the Commission to hold sales to pipelines generally more in accord with the public interest than other sales. There is absolutely no rational basis, as I see it, for selecting distributing companies and consumers as the group of bidders to be sacrificed and eliminated in order to reduce the pressure toward higher field prices. There is no harmful characteristic of these bidders that is not fully shared by pipeline purchasers. Even worse, the purpose*41ful elimination of this entire class of prospective purchasers clashes with the structure of a statute that was largely motivated by a desire to reduce the power of the pipeline companies.
This conflict is most clearly manifested in the violence that the Commission’s proposal does to the statute’s provisions for regulation of a wholly carrier function of the pipelines, for a wholly carrier function can only be served on behalf of either producers which have already sold directly to nonpipelines or on behalf of nonpipelines which have already purchased directly from the producers. It is inescapable that forbidding all transactions involving direct sales between producers and nonpipelines eliminates any wholly carrier function for the pipelines, i. e., eliminates one entire facet of the Commission’s statutory jurisdiction. This statutory amputation — resulting in greater regulatory power over transactions with some non-jurisdictional aspects than there is over transactions all aspects of which are jurisdictional — is clearly outside the discretion of the Federal Power Commission.
Since the Commission regarded as necessary to its decision factors beyond its discretion to consider, the proceeding should be remanded to that agency for reconsideration. We cannot order the certificate granted, for there are results of this particular transportation which the Commission can and should properly consider but which were left unconsidered because of the erroneous broader grounds of the denial. On remand the Commission should not only consider and support with adequate fact findings the particular effects of this transaction on field prices and on Transco’s future capacity to expand its pipeline services, but the way should be left open for it to give more careful consideration to the “end use” factor in its decision. I must say that its previous consideration of this aspect of the matter seems to me to leave much to be *42desired, doubtless because of the over-all mistaken premises on which the Commission proceeded. In a reconsideration of the case upon correct premises, the air-pollution problem may take on a different significance, and whatever conclusions the Commission may reach on this score should in any event be accompanied with more convincing particularized findings.
For the foregoing reasons I would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the Commission for further proceedings.

 The basic reach of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U. S. C. § 717 et seq., is set forth in § 1 (b), 15 U. S. C. § 717 (b):
“The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, to the sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate public consumption for domestic, commercial, industrial, or any other use, and to natural-gas companies engaged in such transportation or sale, but shall not apply to any other transportation or sale of natural gas or to the local distribution of natural gas or to the facilities used for such distribution or to the production or gathering of natural gas.”

 21 F. P. C. 399.

 If there can be any doubt on this score, it is dissipated by the position taken by the Commission in the “Summary of Argument” in its brief in this Court:
“The threat posed by the X-20 type of arrangement to the small consumer, the person for whom the protections of the Natural Gas Act were designed, lies in its potential to establish a new, unregulated, interstate market for natural gas — by the large industrial consumer purchasing directly from the producer — which will compete for new gas supplies with the regulated market over which the Commission currently exercises jurisdiction. . . .
“In the Commission’s view, the new market which this and further X-20 transactions would establish (1) portends definite and lasting inflationary impact on gas prices generally, (2) would probably be devoted to end-uses inappropriate to the Act’s purposes, (3) would disrupt patterns of industry growth carefully evolved during 20 years of congressionally-direeted regulation, and (4) would be beyond effective state regulation.
“On the basis of its judgment that these damaging probable effects outweighed both (1) Con Edison’s need for the gas, and (2) the inadequately shown contribution which burning the gas as boiler fuel might make to local air pollution control, the Commission denied Transco’s application for a certificate as not being required by the present or future public convenience and necessity.”

 I agree with the Court of Appeals that this consideration ultimately depends upon the inferiority of the proposed “end use,” only now the end use is to be considered in the context of limited pipeline capacity rather than limited supply of gas.

 Section 7 (e), 15 U. S. C. § 717f (e), provides:
“(e) Except in the cases governed by the provisos contained in subsection (c) of this section, a certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor, authorizing the whole or any part of the operation, sale, service, construction, extension, or acquisition covered by the application, if it is found that the applicant is able and willing properly to do the acts and to perforin the service proposed and to conform to the provisions of the Act and the requirements, rules, and regulations of the Commission thereunder, and that the proposed service, sale, operation, construction, extension, or acquisition, to the extent authorized by the certificate, is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity; otherwise such application shall be denied. . . .”

 That a greater number of bidders representing the same total demand as a smaller number of bidders would exert greater upward pressure on prices is a basic hypothesis of the antitrust laws which therefore forbid buyers to group together in dealing with a seller. Just as competition is stifled and price affected by competing sellers agreeing to sell- through a single agent (and therefore at a single price), price is also affected by similar action by competing buyers. The Commission conclusion on this subfactor needed no supporting evidence.

 Furthermore, viewing the matter realistically, the Commission must object as strenuously to a producer selling in the State of ultimate consumption as to a distributor or consumer buying in the State of production, for whether the direct sale between a producer and consumer takes place before or after the transportation of the gas is a matter easily manipulated by the parties and a matter which has no effect on the Commission’s policy considerations. The upward pressure on field prices created by increasing the total number of bidders is the same whether the producer finds additional bidders in the consuming State or allows them to come to him in the field.