PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N OF STATE OF NY v. FEDERAL POWER COM'N, 17673.

Citation327 F.2d 893
Decision Date02 January 1964
Docket NumberNo. 17673.,17673.
PartiesPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent, E. Cockrell, Jr., et al., Placid Oil Company, and J. Ray McDermott & Company, Inc., Intervenors.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Mr. Kent H. Brown, Albany, N. Y., with whom Mr. Morton L. Simons, Washington, D. C., and Mrs. Barbara M. Suchow, New York City, were on the brief, for petitioner.

Mr. Paul A. Sweeney, Special Consultant, with whom Messrs. Richard A. Solomon, General Counsel, Robert L. Russell, Assistant General Counsel, and Peter H. Schiff, Attorney, Federal Power Commission, were on the brief, for respondent.

Mr. Cecil N. Cook, Houston, Tex., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Texas, pro hac vice, by special leave of court with whom Mr. Murray Robinson, Houston, Tex., was on the brief for intervenors E. Cockrell, Jr., and Texas Production Co., argued for all intervenors.

Mr. W. Scott Wilkinson, Shreveport, La., was on the brief for intervenor Placid Oil Co.

Mr. Donald J. Mulvihill, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for intervenor J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.

Messrs. Bruce R. Merrill, Houston, Tex., Charles E. McGee, and Edwin S. Nail, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for Continental Oil Co., Sinclair Oil & Gas Co. and Amerada Petroleum Corporation, respectively, as amici curiae, urging affirmance.

Before FAHY, WASHINGTON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

FAHY, Circuit Judge.

The Public Service Commission of the State of New York petitions for review of orders of the Federal Power Commission granting temporary authorizations or certificates of public convenience and necessity under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act1 to three independent producers2 of natural gas. The certificates were issued pending outcome of proceedings on applications for permanent certificates for authority to sell natural gas to the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, an interstate pipeline company, for resale in interstate commerce under contracts calling for an initial price of 23.675¢ per Mcf., with escalation clauses. In support of their requests for temporary certificates the applicants alleged that certain of their fields may be suffering drainage and that under their contracts with the royalty owners they were obligated to pay shut-in royalties until such time as deliveries could commence, thereby subjecting them to continuing economic hardship. Applicants Cockrell, The Texas Production Co. and Placid, see note 2, supra, also alleged that they were having to "flare" casinghead gas thereby depriving the public of a valuable natural resource. In each case the Commission found an emergency to exist which supported the issuance of the temporary certificates, which, however, were conditioned on the initial price being reduced to 21.25¢ per Mcf.

The day following issuance of the certificates PSC intervened and filed objections.3 It applied for a rehearing and for reconsideration, which the Commission granted but, following additional proceedings, then denied. Then came PSC's petition to this court for review. McDermott, Placid, Cockrell and The Texas Production Co., see note 2, supra, have intervened as parties to the court proceedings.

Initially we consider the contention of intervenors that PSC's petition should be dismissed as not within the jurisdiction of the court under Section 19 (b) of the Act,4 which permits review by a party to the Commission proceedings who is aggrieved by its order. The Commission does not raise this jurisdictional objection, and we do not sustain it. PSC intervened, see note 3, supra, and became a party before the Commission immediately after the temporary certificates were issued and while they were subject to reconsideration. Since such certificates are issued without notice or hearing judicial review may not be cut off by lack of intervention before their issuance, especially when, as here, intervention has promptly occurred, followed by the Commission's denial of the PSC petition for reconsideration. PSC as a customer is in the aggrieved party category, and the orders have the requisite finality for judicial review; for while they are not final dispositions of the applications they are final insofar as the issuance of temporary certificates is concerned. It is the power of the Commission in this connection that PSC primarily contests.5

PSC contends that the Commission has no authority to issue temporary certificates to independent producers where the claimed emergency is due to drainage, threatened loss of lease, flaring, and economic hardship resulting from the payment of shut-in royalties. It contends that the sole provision for temporary certificates is found in the following language of Section 7(c) of the Act:

"The Commission may issue a temporary certificate in cases of emergency, to assure maintenance of adequate service or to serve particular customers, without notice or hearing, pending the determination of an application for a certificate * * *."

It is not disputed that the present emergency grants were not "to assure maintenance of adequate service or to serve particular customers;" but the Commission counters that these restrictions apply only to temporary certificates issued to pipelines. It points out that emergencies affecting independent producers, sufficient to authorize the issuance to them of temporary certificates, may arise from "drainage, threatened loss of lease, flaring, economic hardship resulting from payment of shut-in royalties, or similar situations." These are the criteria set forth in Commission Regulation § 157.28(c),6 promulgated in 1956, upon the basis of which the Commission has been issuing temporary certificates to independent producers.

The question is whether Regulation § 157.28(c) is valid. We think it is. The power to issue temporary certificates is not limited to emergencies "to assure maintenance of adequate service or to serve particular customers." As the legislative history makes clear this language has a special relationship to pipelines.7 The court should not construe this affirmative grant of authority as excluding authority in other situations if its exercise finds justification in the Act as a whole. As to this, Section 16,8 relied upon to support Regulation § 157.28 (c),9 empowers the Commission to perform any and all acts and to prescribe, issue, make, amend or rescind such orders or regulations as it may find necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of the Act.

When the decision of the Supreme Court in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U.S. 672, 74 S.Ct. 794, 98 L.Ed. 1035 (1954), held that the Commission could no longer refuse to assume jurisdiction over independent producers it was required to adjust its administrative machinery to the necessity of acting upon thousands of new applications for certificates by such producers to enable them to sell their gas for resale in interstate commerce. In meeting this responsibility it was reasonable for the Commission to adopt means comparable to those the Act expressly gave in the case of pipelines for insuring that the public interest would not be impaired by the lapse of time between the filing of a producer's application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and the Commission's final action on the application. To do this it was necessary for the Commission to adjust its emergency criteria to the nature of gas production rather than to the nature of gas transportation. We assume Congress contemplated from the beginning that the Commission's jurisdiction extended to independent producers, although it set forth no clear criteria to govern the issuance of temporary certificates to them. But we are not required to assume also that it contemplated limiting such certificates to pipelines, even if the restrictive language of Section 7 applies only to pipelines. No provision in the Act is to the effect that temporary certificates may be issued only to pipelines; and Section 16, certainly when read with Section 7, supports their issuance to independent producers under emergency conditions defined by Regulation § 157.28(c).

While the Natural Gas Act is a statute and is not to be construed as a "constitution," nevertheless the problems placed under Commission administration, with consequent Commission responsibilities, call upon the courts to give the Act a scope reasonably necessary to permit the agency to perform its tasks consistently with the provisions and purposes of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Purity Supreme, Inc. v. Attorney General
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 3 Junio 1980
    ...Int'l v. Quesada, 276 F.2d 892 (2d Cir. 1960) (Civil Aeronautics Board, under 49 U.S.C. §§ 1421 et seq.); Public Serv. Comm'n v. Federal Power Comm'n, 327 F.2d 893 (D.C. Cir. 1964) (FPC, under 15 U.S.C. §§ 717 et seq.); Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Securities Exch. Comm'n, 126 F.2d 325 (2d Cir. ......
  • National Petroleum Refiners Association v. FTC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 27 Junio 1973
    ...in the agency statute, was stated succinctly and definitively for this court by Judge Fahy in Public Service Comm'n of State of New York v. FPC, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 199, 327 F.2d 893, 897 (1964): "All authority of the Commission need not be found in explicit language. Section 16 the gener......
  • Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 2 Marzo 2012
    ...156 to include the authority to require notice posting, then an express provision would be unnecessary. See Pub. Serv. Comm'n of N.Y. v. FPC, 327 F.2d 893, 897 (D.C.Cir.1964) (“All authority of the Commission need not be found in explicit language. Section 16 [the general rulemaking provisi......
  • Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Federal Power Com'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 18 Mayo 1967
    ...conditions, or orders of the Commission. 17 16 U.S.C. § 825h (1964). 18See, e. g., Public Serv. Comm'n of State of New York v. FPC, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 198-199, 327 F.2d 893, 896-897 (1964). See generally, United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192, 203, 76 S.Ct. 763, 100 L.Ed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT