Canadian River Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 1931.
| Citation | 110 F.2d 350 |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 1931.,1931. |
| Parties | CANADIAN RIVER GAS CO. et al. v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
C. H. Keffer, of Amarillo, Tex., and Elmer L. Brock, of Denver, Colo. (H. L. Adkins, H. C. Pipkin, Wales H. Madden, and H. M. Adkins, all of Amarillo, Tex., P. C. Spencer of New York City, Wm. L. Darrah, of Amarillo, Tex., John P. Akolt, E. R. Campbell, and Milton Smith, all of Denver, Colo., and William A. Dougherty, of New York City, on the briefs), for petitioners.
Richard J. Connor, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Power Commission, of Washington, D. C. (David W. Robinson, Jr., Gen. Counsel, and Edward H. Lange and W. A. Whittlesey, Attys., Federal Power Commission, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before LEWIS, PHILLIPS, and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.
The Canadian River Gas Company,1 the Colorado Interstate Gas Company,2 and the Colorado-Wyoming Gas Company3 are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware.4
The Canadian Company is engaged in the production and gathering of natural gas in the Amarillo Field in Texas and the transportation thereof through its main natural gas pipe line from the Amarillo Field to Clayton, N. M. Substantially all the gas produced by it is sold to the Colorado Company at Clayton, N. M., or at Gray, Okla. A small portion of such gas is sold and delivered by the Canadian Company to the Clayton Gas Company at Clayton, N. M., and the Amarillo Oil Company in Texas.
The Colorado Company owns and operates a main transmission natural gas pipe line extending from Clayton, N. M., to a point near the city of Denver, in the state of Colorado. The Wyoming Company owns and operates a main transmission natural gas pipe line extending from Littleton, Colo., to Cheyenne, Wyo.
The Colorado Company transports gas purchased by it from the Canadian Company, to a point near Denver, Colo., and there sells it to the Public Service Company of Colorado, a public utility engaged in the local distribution and sale of gas at retail to consumers in the city and county of Denver, state of Colorado. The Wyoming Company purchases gas from the Colorado Company and transports it from Littleton, Colo., to Cheyenne, Wyo., where it sells it to the Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company, a public utility engaged in the local distribution and sale of gas at retail to consumers in the city of Cheyenne, Wyo.
Neither the Canadian Company nor the Colorado Company has held itself out as willing and ready to serve all customers who might desire to purchase natural gas. No gas is sold by them other than under private contracts. The Canadian Company has limited itself to contracts with the Colorado Company and two other companies. The Colorado Company has limited itself to contracts with five local distributing companies and two pipe line companies, its principal customer being the Public Service Company. Their transportation facilities are used exclusively for the transportation of their own gas.
On July 5, 1938, the Federal Power Commission,5 purporting to act under the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 717, and 717a to 717w, inclusive, issued its general order No. 51, with a questionnaire attached thereto, served the same upon the Canadian Company and the Colorado Company and directed them to furnish the information therein called for. The order and questionnaire purported to require information to enable the Commission to determine whether the Canadian Company and the Colorado Company were natural gas companies within the meaning of the Natural Gas Act. The Canadian Company complied with the order and furnished the information therein requested under a written reservation that its action "should not be construed as a waiver by the company of its rights to contest the jurisdiction of the Commission in any proceeding instituted under said act affecting such company." The Colorado Company complied with the order and furnished the information therein requested under a like reservation.
On July 5, 1938, the Commission issued its general order No. 53 designating the time and place for filing schedules of rates and charges under Sec. 4(c) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 717c, and certain reports in connection therewith. A copy of this order was served upon the Canadian Company and the Colorado Company. Neither of them had any schedule of rates and charges, but each had certain private contracts for the sale of gas entered into prior to the enactment of the Natural Gas Act, which contracts stipulated specific prices for gas. The Canadian Company filed its contracts with the Commission under a reservation reciting that the filing of the contracts was not done voluntarily but under duress, due to the excessive penalties which would be incurred as a result of a failure to comply with the Natural Gas Act. The reservation further stated that the filing of the contracts should not be construed as an admission that the rates and charges provided in the contracts were subject to governmental regulation. The Colorado Company filed its contracts under a like reservation.
On December 22, 1938, the city and county of Denver filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that the Colorado Company's contract price for gas to the Public Service Company at the Denver rate was unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory, and praying that the contract price be abrogated and that the Commission fix reasonable rates.
On March 14, 1939, the Commission made an order in the matter of Canadian River Gas Company, et al., Docket No. G-124. This order recited the foregoing facts with respect to the incorporation of the Canadian Company, the Colorado Company, and the Wyoming Company, and the facilities owned by each, and the business in which each engaged. It further recited that the main transmission natural gas pipe lines owned and operated by such companies "are so interconnected as to constitute, for the purposes of conducting an investigation, one continuous line extending from the Texas Panhandle, near Amarillo, Texas, to Cheyenne, Wyoming," and that such companies "are engaged in the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce and the sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate public consumption, for domestic, commercial, industrial, and other uses, and are, therefore, natural gas companies within the meaning of the Natural Gas Act." It further recited compliance by such companies with order No. 53 and the proceeding instituted by the city and county of Denver and like proceedings instituted by the Public Service Commission of the state of Wyoming respecting the contract between the Wyoming Company and the Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company. The order further reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Papago Tribal Utility Authority v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
...of a natural gas company is "in no proper sense a definitive order. Rather, it is a mere step in procedure." Canadian River Gas Co. v. FPC, 110 F.2d 350, 352 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 311 U.S. 693, 61 S.Ct. 76, 85 L.Ed. 449 (1940). See also Rosenthal & Co. v. Commodity Futures Trading Com'......
-
Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Federal Power Com'n
...denied on the ground that the order was merely preliminary and procedural and therefore not open to review. Canadian River Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 10 Cir., 110 F.2d 350; Id., 10 Cir., 113 F.2d 1010, certiorari denied 311 U.S. 693, 61 S.Ct. 76, 85 L.Ed. 449. By order of the Comm......
-
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. FEDERAL POWER COM'N
...S.Ct. 459, 82 L.Ed. 638; Public Service Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff, 344 U.S. 237, 73 S.Ct. 236, 97 L.Ed. 291; Canadian River Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 10 Cir., 110 F.2d 350, rehearing denied, 10 Cir., 113 F.2d 1010, certiorari denied 311 U.S. 693, 61 S.Ct. 76, 85 L.Ed. 449; United ......
-
Jersey Central Power & L. Co. v. FEDERAL POWER COM'N
...Act. We conclude therefore that we have jurisdiction to review the Determination by the Commission. Compare Canadian River Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 10 Cir., 110 F.2d 350; Id., 113 F.2d 1010, certiorari denied 311 U.S. 693, 61 S.Ct. 76, 85 L.Ed. Is Jersey Central a Public Utility......