Consolidated Rail Corp. v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 23 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | 82-3175,82-3144,82-3116,82-3113,Nos. 81-3080,82-3114,81-3082,83-3336,83-3337,s. 81-3080 |
| Citation | 812 F.2d 1444 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
| Parties | CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Intervenors, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, et al., Intervenors. The WESTERN COAL TRAFFIC LEAGUE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Intervenors, Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Intervenors. ELECTRIC FUELS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, et al., Intervenors. CHESSIE SYSTEM RAILROADS, et al., Petitioners, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, et al., Intervenors. EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE, Petitioner, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, et al., Intervenors. ALABAMA POWER COMPANY, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, Central Illinois Light Company, et al., Intervenors. WESTERN COAL TRAFFIC LEAGUE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, Eastern and Southern Coal Hauling Railroads (Chessie System Railroads, et al.), Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (Western Railroads), Intervenors. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Duke Power Co., Iowa Power & Light Co., Iowa Public Service Co., the Kansas Power and Light Co., Kerr-McGee Corp., Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., Omaha Public Power Dist., S. Carolina Electric & Gas Co., Southwestern Electric Power Co., and Tampa Electric Co., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co., et al., Intervenors. CONSUMER OWNED POWER COALITION, Petitioner, |
Robert S. Burk, General Counsel, Ellen D. Hanson, Associate General Counsel, Timm L. Abendroth (argued), Washington, D.C., for I.C.C.
Douglas Ginsburg, Asst. Atty. Gen., John J. Powers, III, John P. Fonte, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for United States.
R. Eden Martin (argued), Richard E. Young, David M. Levy (Robert B. Batchelder, Philip S. Brown, Samuel R. Freeman, Christopher A. Mills, William R. Power, Donal L. Turkal, Stuart E. Vaughn and Richard E. Weicher, of counsel), Sidley & Austin, Washington, D.C., for Western Railroads.
Paul A. Cunningham (argued), Robert M. Jenkins, III, Merc D. Machlin (Richard B. Allen, Fred R. Birkholz, John A. Daily, James L. Howe, III, Richard W. Kienle, Charles C. Rettberg, Jr., James L. Tapley, Donald M. Tolmie and Anne E. Treadway, of counsel), Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Washington, D.C., Laurence Z. Shiekman John F. Donelan, John M. Cleary and Frederic L. Wood (argued), Donelan, Cleary, Wood & Maser, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Carolina Power and Light Co., Duke Power Co., South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co., Tampa Elec. Co., Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., Iowa-Illinois Gas and Elec. Co., Iowa Power & Light Co., Iowa Public Service Co., Iowa Southern Utilities Co., Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., Southwestern Elec. Power Co., Omaha Public Power Dist., and Iowa Elec. Light & Power Co.
and Thomas E. Zemaitis, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Philadelphia, Pa., for Eastern and Southern Railroads.
John M. Cutler, Jr. and Charles J. McCarthy, McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Atlantic City Elec. Co., Commonwealth Edison Co., Madison Gas and Elec. Co., Monongahela Power Co., Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co., Union Elec. Co., Wisconsin Elec. Power Co., Wisconsin Power & Light Co. and Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
James M. Casey (argued), Daniel John Regan, Jr., Reid & Priest, Washington, D.C., for Dayton Power and Light Co.
John Guandolo and Vern W. Hill, MacDonald, McInerny, Guandolo, Jordan, & Crampton, Washington, D.C., and A.T. Udrys, Jackson, Mich., for Consumers Power Co.
Harry H. Voight, Leonard M. Trosten and Michael F. McBride, Leboeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, Washington, D.C., for Edison Elec. Institute.
J. Raymond Clark, Washington, D.C., for Central Illinois Light Co., Central Louisiana Elec. Co., NERCO, Inc., Potomac Elec. Power Co., Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc., South Carolina Public Service Authority and System Fuels, Inc.
William L. Slover, C. Michael Loftus, Donald G. Avery, John H. LeSeur and Kelvin J. Dowd, Slover & Loftus, Washington, D.C., for Western Coal Traffic League, Consumer Owned Power Coalition and Eastern Coal Transp. Conference.
John R. Molm and Charles V. Gerkin, Jr., Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, Atlanta, Ga., for Alabama Power Co., Georgia Power Co., Gulf Power Co., Mississippi Power Co. and Southern Co., Services, Inc.
Dennis N. Barnes, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Washington, D.C., for Elec. Fuels Corp.
Before GIBBONS, Chief Judge, BECKER, Circuit Judge, and VAN ARTSDALEN, * District Judge.
This case is before us on petitions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2321(a) and 2342(5) (1982 & Supp. III 1985), to enjoin or suspend an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) issued on September 3, 1985 in Ex Parte No. 347 (Sub-No. 1), Coal Rate Guidelines, Nationwide, 1 I.C.C.2d 520 (1985). The proceeding in which the order was entered is part of the ICC's continuing effort to comply with the deregulation mandates of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, Pub.L. No. 94-210, 90 Stat. 31 (hereinafter 4 R Act) and the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, Pub.L. No. 96-448, 94 Stat. 1895 (hereinafter the Staggers Act). In Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. v. I.C.C., 691 F.2d 1104 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1110, 103 S.Ct. 2463, 77 L.Ed.2d 1340 (1983) this court upheld the ICC's rule adopting as the standard of revenue adequacy for market dominant carriers a rate of return on a net investment equal to the current cost of capital. The instant case involves an issue concerning the ICC's maximum rate guidelines for coal not presented in Bessemer--the extent to which the ICC may permit differential pricing for market dominant carriers who have not achieved revenue adequacy. The Final Guidelines embodied in Ex Parte No. 347 impose four constraints on market dominant carrier rates for captive coal shippers. We hold that the four constraints in the Final Guidelines are consistent with the 4 R Act and the Staggers Act. Thus we will affirm the ICC order insofar as it is challenged by various shipper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salt Pond Associates v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENG.
...are fit for judicial review and that significant hardship would occur if judicial review was withheld. Accord, Consolidated Rail Corp. v. U.S., 812 F.2d 1444, 1451 (3rd Cir.1987). The Court concurs with Plaintiff's argument that if the Court were to not review the pond restoration and Loop ......
-
Lester H. by Octavia P. v. Gilhool
...overruled on other grounds, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977)); see also Consolidated Rail Corp. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1444 (3d Cir.1987). The School District argues that a compensatory remedy requires the court to ascertain Lester's future education......
-
Route 26 Land Development Ass'n v. US Government, Civ. A. No. 88-643 LON.
...An issue is fit for judicial review if it is essentially legal and if the agency's resolution of it is final." Consolidated Rail Corp. v. U.S., 812 F.2d 1444, 1451 (3rd Cir.1987). In determining whether or not to review an agency action, a court should also consider whether the plaintiff ha......
-
Midtec Paper Corp. v. U.S., 87-1032
...competition from other rail carriers or modes of transportation Congress opted to deregulate rates." Consolidated Rail Corp. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1444, 1449 (3d Cir.1987). More generally, "[t]he primary goal of the Act was to revitalize the railroad industry by reducing or eliminating......
-
Statutory Exemptions for Regulated Industries
...by the courts. 368 But at least one court has found that a railroad’s anticompetitive conduct, designed to weaken a United States, 812 F.2d 1444 (3d Cir. 1987); Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases, 2006 STB LEXIS 519 (STB 2006) (so-called simplified guidelines). 364. 49 U.S.C. § 10704(......
-
Table of Cases
...Metal Prods., Inc. v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 846 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1988), 67 Table of Cases 377 Consolidated Rail Corp. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1444 (3d Cir. 1987), 334, 335 Consolidated Television Cable Serv. v. City of Frankfort, 857 F.2d 354 (6th Cir. 1988), 118 Continental Mar. of S.F......
-
Table of Cases
...171, 172, 173, 174 Coal Rail Guidelines, Nationwide, 1 I.C.C. 2d 520 (1985), aff’d sub nom., Consolidated Rail Corp. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1444 (3d Cir. 1987), 236 Coastal Fuels of P.R. v. Caribbean Petroleum Corp., 990 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1993), 54 Collins v. Int’l Dairy Queen, 980 F. S......
-
Transportation Markets
...note 167, at 28. 170. Coal Rate Guidelines, Nationwide, 1 I.C.C. 2d 520 (1985), aff’d sub nom. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1444 (3d Cir. 1987); Marc Ivaldi & Gerard McCullough, Railroad Pricing and Revenue-to-Cost Margins in the Post-Staggers Era, in RAILROAD ECONOMIC......