Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. FEDERAL POWER COM'N, 10145.
| Decision Date | 28 November 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 10145.,10145. |
| Citation | 185 F.2d 357 |
| Parties | COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
William A. Dougherty and James Lawrence White, New York City, (Henry F. Lippitt II, New York City, Charles E. McGee, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
William S. Tarver, Washington, D. C., (Bradford Ross, General Counsel, Albert J. Feigen, and Louis C. Kaplan, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Edgar A. Stansfield, Denver, Colo., (Lee, Bryans, Kelly & Stansfield, Denver, Colo., on the brief), for Public Service Co. of Colorado.
Leland E. Modesitt, Denver, Colo., (J. Glenn Donaldson, Denver, Colo., on the brief), for City and County of Denver.
Louis Johnson, Colorado Springs, Colo., (F. T. Henry, Colorado Springs, Colo., on the brief), for City of Colorado Springs.
Before ALBERT LEE STEPHENS, MARIS and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.
Upon the petition of Colorado Interstate Gas Company this court is asked to review an order of the Federal Power Commission disallowing certain changes proposed by Colorado Interstate in the applicability provision of its FPC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, which tariff had been filed pursuant to the Commission's Order No. 144, issued October 30, 1948, amended November 17, 1948. Pursuant to an earlier order of the Commission, made in 1942 and affirmed in 1945,1 Colorado Interstate had on October 1, 1945 filed supplements to its existing FPC rate schedules making the reductions in rates required by the Commission's order. These supplements, of which Supplement No. 7 to Rate Schedule FPC No. 1 may be regarded as typical, contained the following applicability clause: "This rate schedule shall apply to all natural gas delivered by Colorado Interstate to the Buyer except such natural gas as Buyer may purchase from Colorado Interstate under Rate Schedules I-1 and I-2."
In the order which the Commission entered October 3, 1945 accepting these supplements for filing it provided that "The rates and charges contained in the new rate schedules * * * are to be effective * * * for all sales of natural gas in interstate commerce for resale for ultimate public consumption." (Emphasis supplied).
In FPC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, which it had filed May 2, 1949, the tariff involved in the present controversy, Colorado Interstate on June 24, 1949 included the following applicability clause in Rate Schedules G-1 and P-1, First Revised Sheets Nos. 4 and 7:2
"This rate schedule shall apply to all natural gas delivered by Colorado Interstate to the Buyer: (1) for resale except such natural gas as Buyer may purchase from Colorado Interstate under Rate Schedules I-1 and I-2; (2) which constitutes Buyer's lost and unaccounted for natural gas; and (3) which Buyer consumes in rendering natural gas service to its customers."
The Commission suspended these applicability clauses and subsequently, by the order of November 2, 1949 here under review, disallowed them and directed Colorado Interstate to file Second Revised Sheets Nos. 4 and 7 to its FPC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, containing applicability clauses as follows: "This rate schedule shall apply to all natural gas delivered by Colorado Interstate to the Buyer except such natural gas as Buyer may purchase from Colorado Interstate under Rate Schedules I-1 and I-2." Colorado Interstate's application for rehearing having been denied the present petition for review was filed.
We have described the action taken by the Commission which is here under review but we have not been given the benefit of the reasons which motivated the Commission in taking that action. The opinion filed in the proceeding before the Commission was concurred in by only two of the four participating Commissioners and accordingly cannot be taken as stating the views of the Commission but merely those of the two Commissioners who signed it. The third Commissioner who concurred in the order under review did not file an opinion or otherwise state his views while the remaining Commissioner filed a dissenting opinion.
In this court the argument has taken a wide range. It appears that Colorado Interstate sells natural gas to Public Service Company of Colorado, a local public utility in the Denver area, and to the City of Colorado Springs. While in each case most of the gas thus sold is resold by the buyers to local consumers, some of it is consumed by the buyers in their own boiler plants for the generation of electricity and, in the case of Public Service, steam for resale to consumers. The gas thus sold is delivered by Colorado Interstate into the mains of the buyers at the city borders, the gas which is ultimately resold being commingled in delivery with that which is ultimately consumed by the buyers in their own boiler plants. Both parties have discussed at length the question whether the gas thus sold by Colorado Interstate to Public Service and Colorado Springs which is subsequently consumed by the buyers in their own boiler plants is subject to regulation by the Federal Power Commission. It is clear that they would both like to have this court decide that question. We are satisfied, however, that the question is not presented by the record now before us and that we are not called upon to decide it.
The question which the record does present is a much narrower one, namely, whether the Commission may disallow the filing by Colorado Interstate of a tariff applicable only to natural gas delivered to a buyer for resale and may require it to make its filed tariff applicable to all natural gas delivered to the buyer, whether or not for resale. For this, and this alone, is what the Commission has attempted to do by the order now under review. In order to answer this question we turn to Section 1 (b) of the Natural Gas Act,3 which provides as follows: "(b) The provisions of this Act 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."
It will be seen that the significant language is: "The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Public Utilities Commission of California Mineral County, Nevada v. Public Utilities Commission of California
...but rather note that the Commission's own view of the matter may still be in the formative stage. See Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 3 Cir., 185 F.2d 357; City of Hastings v. Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co., 12 F.P.C. 3, 98 P.U.R. (N.S.) * This history is set out i......
-
South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
...on the contrary, an express congressional reservation of jurisdiction to another body. Id.; see also Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 185 F.2d 357, 360 (3d Cir.1950). In sum, the history and judicial construction of the Natural Gas Act suggest that all aspects related to th......
-
Kansas-Nebraska Nat. Gas Co. v. Village of Deshler, Neb.
...Pipe Line Company v. Public Service Commission of Indiana, 332 U.S. 507, 68 S.Ct. 190, 92 L.Ed. 128; Colorado Interstate Gas Company v. Federal Power Commission, 3 Cir., 185 F.2d 357; Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. Federal Power Commission, 3 Cir., 232 F.2d 467; and finally and espe......
-
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Com'n, 11510.
...Panhandle to make its rate schedule applicable to direct sales and thus to regulate those sales as in Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 3 Cir., 1950, 185 F.2d 357. What the Commission does say, and rightly we think, is that in considering the question of issuing a cer......