Gulf States Utilities Company v. Federal Power Commission, Southwest Louisiana Electric Membership Corporation, Intervenor

Michigan See Consolidated Gas tlement. FPC, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 409, v. nom., cert. denied F.2d sub Pan Pipe Line Eastern Co. v. Michi handle Consolidated

gan 5 L.Ed.2d 227 81 S.Ct. experience this case has left

Our appreciation of the difficult

us faced

task coping with curtailments ne- gas natural shortage.

cessitated planning to deal with the trust We apply winter will whatever

upcoming adopted light criteria

general problems particular of each pipe- its customers and will take into

line experience during the 1974- account season. winter

GULF STATES UTILITIES

COMPANY, Petitioner, COMMISSION,

FEDERAL POWER

Respondent, Louisiana

Southwest Electric Member-

ship Corporation, Intervenor.

No. 74-1160. Appeals,

United States Court of District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Feb.

Decided Aug.

Opinion for the Court filed Circuit Judge LEVENTHAL.

LEVENTHAL, Judge: Circuit July of 1950 Gulf States Utilities States) and (Gulf the South Membership Louisiana Electric Co west (SLEMCO) entered into a con operative supply energy of electrical tract for That SLEMCO. by which set a maximum de agreement, 8,000 kilowatts,1 ceiling of some mand Federal Power held Commis to be a sion, June fixed-rate rate in that barred supplier for deliveries of creases electricity.2 19, 1973, In its order of October deny ing rehearing for June 14th of the August interpreted agree an modifying ment 1950 contract as re ceiling, moving making the demand thus energy supplied by subject to the contract and to fixed contract rates.3 We are asked for review of an order Petition interpretation to review this of the 1970 Federal Power Commission. We affirm the agreement. conclusion of the Commission. Beaumont, Tex., Hughes, for Benny H. BACKGROUND I. LEGAL petitioners. Act, The Federal Power 16 U.S.C. Walsh, C., M. Atty., Thomas F. P. seq. (1970), requires, 824 et §§ Counsel, Forquer, Leo E. Gen. whom 205(c),4 every public utility file § Jr., Sol., George McHenry, W. and John charges of its rates and schedules Burnes, Jr., C., Atty., H. F. P. were on subject juris to the Commission’s sales respondent. the brief 205(d)5 prohibits any Section diction. La., Schwab, Rouge, Baton John change previously filed rates intervenor. except by taking filing effect with the Commission, thirty days’ after LEVENTHAL, up notice TAMM' and Before 205(e)6 held FPC’s determination and MILLER,* § Judges, Judge, Circuit * Investigation pursuant by designation Sitting to 28 U.S.C. Under Section in Docket No. E-8121, 14, 1973, Supp. 293(a). J.A. 2-9. § dispute figure 1. There is some over the Denying E-8121, Rehearing, 3. Order in Docket figure 19, 1973, SLEMCO reads the Supp. J.A. October 27-28. State believes while Gulf as 8,000. 824d(c) 8,000 figure 4. 16 U.S.C. for conve We use intending nience, without to resolve the 824d(d) U.S.C. § 5. 16 significance dispute. The difference is of no 824d(e) (1970). 6. 16 U.S.C. appeal. for this Increase, Proposed Suspending Rate 2. Order Hearing, Instituting Setting Matter for suspend with contractual obligations sistent authorizes are valid; up filings to five months new rates inconsistent with obligations on whether hearing

pending invalid. and reasonable. Section change just Light v. Power & Richmond Commission, upon its 206(a)7 allows complaint, to hold a upon motion or own Indiana & Michi sub nom. denied cert. “unjust, a rate whether is hearing on 1068, 414 U.S. Co. Electric gan unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or 578, 38 L.Ed.2d 94 S.Ct. a new rate if to fix and preferential” accept a Thus, deciding whether unlawful. found to be rate is filed made unilateral increase filing of a rate must seller the Commission by the ly Supreme The Court has held intended to parties whether decide provisions do not authorize these changes or whether unilateral such allow approve the Commission established fixed rate contract increases that are inconsistent with rate through mutual ne changed only can be obligations. seller’s See gotiation. Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile United Gas Gas 332, Corp., 373, 350 U.S. 76 S.Ct. Service (1956); FPC v. 100 L.Ed. 373 Sierra Pa II. THE FACTUAL SETTING Co., 348, cific Power U.S. S.Ct. The contract between Gulf 368, (1956). Rather, they 100 L.Ed. and SLEMCO for the furnishing “only for notice to the Commis electricity was framed in 1950. Arti- by established sion of the rates the natu III, paragraph B cle of that contract set gas companies” parte ral ex —either 5,700 an initial maximum commitment of through negotiation, particular as the kilowatts, which could be increased up to provides by contract for review —“and 8,000 I, kilowatts. In article points five those rates.” United delivery established, were with a Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service capacity” “maximum in terms of kilo- 343, Corp., 76 S.Ct. at point. watts for each The con- power, The Commission has the un that, provided “[u]pon ap- written 206(a), require change der a rate not plication by Customer agreeable and if agreed parties, but its sole Company, of delivery proceeding such a concern in is “whether . may be established . ..” Article so low adversely the rate is as to affect provided V that SLEMCO pay should public interest distin electric energy “for all furnished hereun- guished private from the interests of the der at the rates . . set forth in utilities.” FPC v. Sierra Pacific Power ” REA, Rate Schedule attached. supra, 350 U.S. at 76 S.Ct. at agreed further [it that] If the contract between the should sell to any consumer to the seller privilege reserves than those “other in the availa- change the rate unilaterally, there is no bility REA, clause of Schedule such acceptance, subject bar to Commission longer shall no apply.” schedule In that powers 205(e) its review §§ case a new rate shall negotiated, 206(a). Gas Pipe United Line Co. v. “parties agree fail on a proper ap- Memphis Light, Division, Gas & Water rate, then plicable said shall 103, 79 358 U.S. S.Ct. be cancelled.” We have said: Between March of 1951 and Sierra, The rule of and Mem- Mobile 1963, the 1950 contract was amended six phis refreshingly simple: The con- agreements times letter that made the parties governs tract between changes and additions in delivery points of the legality filing. filings Rate con- made no increase in the but 824e(a) (1970).

7. 16 U.S.C. § rou- deliveries in excess of max- filing commitment. commitment established electricity SLEMCO imum tinely delivered contract, investigation maximum. excess far delivered; to determine whether the were instituted 35,579 kilowatts In kilowatts; and in that contract were in the rates fixed 1963, 45,090 ap- interest. Gulf States made no public kilowatts. Order, rehearing of plication filed new April reconsideration, urg- asked that would schedules among grounds, other that the Com- ing, rates effective its wholesale increase ignored decision mission’s were to schedules 1973. These practice delivering long-standing elec- SLEM- Gulf States’ affect in excess of its maximum con- power tric contracts with other as its CO, as well commitment and that it failed tractual filing Gulf States said In its customers. the recognize agree- to expressly con- its contracts most of ceiling. ment eliminated rate increases and unilateral templated responded that it The Commission provide contract did not that, past delivery practices not bound increases, the new rates parties, and deferred consideration of to deliveries apply to were agreement the letter of the effect of commitment. filing. action on that pending docket, May on separate In a judicial review of this or- petitioned of agreement the letter filed Gulf States der, subsequently but dismissed its ap- extended that modified and August peal. SLEMCO, as That through July of 1963. amended THE FIXED RATE CHARACTER III. inter alia that specified agreement 1950 CONTRACT OF THE language of the interpret “Company will no less than to be favorable [contract] court, argument oral before this . In if Exhibit A be the case would ., contended . .” Exhibit Gulf States . incorporated were including the 1970 agreement, extension The first paragraphs. four contained A modification, impose does not “will that Gulf States obligation under Mobile- as fixed-rate capacity ... [SLEM- provides, it doctrine because warrants Load Growth Sierra Normal CO’s] XI, “is article sub- provided for the second ..” The governmental all valid laws and ject over and capacity, “additional of supply ..” Gulf regulations States did Growth” certain Load above Normal ruling the FPC’s June 1973 appeal ar- not The third established circumstances. would, contrary, and the matter un- disputes that procedures bitration circumstances, ordinary judi- be res specified portions der of might arise cata. And paragraphs. two first abandonment allowed the fourth argues that Gulf States delivery or the reduction only effect should extend judicata res “capacity so abandoned or if the capacity specified in the 1950 con- the maximum be delivered from another is to reduced To find the June order to be res tract. Delivery” supplied by Gulf Point for all deliveries would be un- judicata States. claims, fair, for it did not when the Commission’s decision the FPC know an Order of that the decision would not rendered proposed Gulf States’ rate was accepted relatively small amount schedule, only affect found the SLEMCO con- (less in the 1950 contract than fixed rates within contemplate total deliver- cent of Gulf States’ per doctrine. terms of Mobile-Sierra ten SLEMCO), extended but would be accepted as an initial ies The schedule filed its in excess of import. to cover volumes rehearing, may which have been the kilowatts. signal that the to Gulf States first Keystone Insurance In Stebbins might interpret the letter 326, 481 F.2d 501 commitment, its contractual expanding held that conventional (1973), we 13th, expiration the eve of the estoppel applies to that collateral rule period thirty-day time in which Gulf independent grounds upon two both of petition could file a for reconsid judgment expressly rested which a 1.34(a) (1974). 18 C.F.R. Un eration. when one of the not be followed should der these circumstances Gulf States has to exhaust grounds is failure administra- strong argument, under the principle holding we In so con- tive remedies. Stebbins, its understanding of the bound probability sidered impact of the June 14th order was acquiesced judg- in the earlier party had while it reasonable is foreclos ground “one ment because attacking the June ed from 14th order adjudicate finally the case on does not 8,000 kilowatts), (as may not fairly operates per- merits but challenging foreclosed from Com litigation future mit continued mission’s characterization of the contract U.S.App.D.C. at . .” 156 extended, insofar as as fixed-rate that is purpose noted that the F.2d at 508. We apply the October to all estoppel is to avoid waste of of collateral deliveries SLEMCO.8 judicial resources and it would Assuming arguendo that the fixed-rate on its head to principle “that stand maintain, characterization could reviewed at effect, be. party in that a must time, this we find no merit in Gulf every solely each and fully litigate issue contention. Gulf argu States’ States’ avoiding of purpose collateral es- derives the provision ment in the even where he is otherwise will- toppel,” 1950 contract “is accept the' result. Id. ing to subject to all valid laws regulations Gulf may have language, XI, chosen to ac- . .” This in article quiesce in the Commission’s straight-forward, June 14th import is and its clear assumption Order on the that its impact simply acknowledge existing regula minor, relatively having was authority,9 no effect on tory g., e. require notice beyond kilowatts, future deliveries provisions ment and review spelled out at least as Gulf States understood its by Court in United Pipe Line hearing 8. The instituted a 206 a to deter If rate increase or decrease be made by applicable rates fixed the 1950 mine if the unlawful, contract are to the service rendered open possibility Co-op and thus left States to the Sam Dam hereunder higher may eventually required. by acceptance rate be final filing by that a order or through any regulatory body relief a 206 Gulf States of having very thereof, hearing Supreme jurisdiction limited. The Court such increased or de- sufficient, applicable has held that is not in such a creased rates shall be to such hearing, yields to find that a rate a low rate of service rendered hereunder from and after Rather, above, change. return. as we noted the Com the effective date of such rate find mission must that “the rate is so The Commission language low as had ruled that this adversely public privilege affect interest . reserved to Gulf . .” States the to effect Co., supra, changes by filing. FPC v. Sierra Pacific Power rate Although 355, language ambiguous U.S. at 76 S.Ct. at 372. See also was Lands somewhat we deter- FPC, 185, U.S.App.D.C. 192-93, context, only dale mined it reflected “an 1104, acknowledgment 494 F.2d 1111-12 agreed-upon even an necessarily subject rate increase would Compare Rayburn Sam Coop Dam Electric approval appropriate the final regula- of the FPC, U.S.App. 281, erative v. 515 F.2d tory agency understanding [and] that such (Nos. 73-1996, 73-2167, 11, July 1975), an increase could not become effective until argument a raised similar agency so ordered.” on ambiguous the basis of a more clause in its at 515 F.2d at 1003. Rayburn contract with Sam Dam Electric Co operative, Inc., provided: at the level Corp., supra, Gas Service v. Mobile Co. contract, or wheth- the 1950 Only 76 S.Ct. 373.10 a specified at ruled, they subsequently er, could discern in its the FPC reading tortured ceiling, extending power a reservation removed phrasing contract, including the of the unilaterally, and to be terms change rates to deliveries provision provisions, override blanket level. Article V that paragraph SLEM first . . electric pay “shall CO rates hereunder at the furnished

energy OF DELIVERY EFFECT THE IV. in Rate Schedule set forth PRACTICES . .” REA, hereto . attached con In its June the 1950 conclusion that Our long is forti failed to find that Gulf rate contract a fixed standing V practice making of Article deliveries in the structure fied para Following first excess contractual maximum re (“Rates”). above, SLEMCO, shall contract ceiling. moved the quoted graph, court, energy furnished before this asked the Intervenor all electric “for pay set to consider point rates in its hereunder rehearing REA attached of the June or Rate Schedule forth in but, February paragraph provides der dismissed .,” the second customers, appeal new from the FPC’s sells to refusal if SLEMCO rehearing. dismissal, Prior grant availa- those than “other REA,” par- appeal consolidated with Schedule bility clause rate; they and if cases decided in negotiate Rayburn Sam Dam shall ties rate, Cooperative v. Electric agree on U.S. fail to us App.D.C. (Nos. This indicates cancelled. 73- shall be customers, 1996, 73-2167, 1975).11 no new there are applies. Gulf States schedule REA rate plausible explana- any offered has not Cooperative, Mid-South Electric anoth- require should why parties the

tion of customer which has con- Gulf States er new customers rate for negotiation to and had identical SLEMCO’s general already had Gulf States if similarly received deliveries of electric without rate schedules new right post to contract power far max- agreement. SLEMCO’s imum, the pressed matter before our remanded, holding that the court. We question of proceed to the We now required was to evaluate to leave parties the intended whether parties argues because “both to the eral rate increases Gulf States since 10. admittedly [although erroneously] doing parties two busi- the contract between was formed regulatory Louisiana, contemplates that the commis- article XI assumed [state ness in Commission, law, sion], permits had not the Federal Power application of which Louisiana jurisdiction over contract.” ultimate for contracts under increases jurisdiction U.S.App.D.C. regulatory at 498. at commission’s the state parties approval by upon application no claim that to its to and that com- States makes Plaquemine SLEMCO entertained a similar v. Serv- contract with Louisiana Public mission. Comm’n, (La.1973); misconception. Shreve- So.2d 440 ice port Gas & Electric v. Southwestern Ray- involved the Sam 11. Two contracts cites 92 So. 365 La. case, Rayburn me Sam contract differs burn Light Power & Richmond contract. other con- The from the proposition this law must be state Cooperative tract, Mid-South Electric between determining applied not whether or States, identical to SLEMCO- and Gulf fixed rate. The FPC determined Light inapposite here. Power & Richmond rate, imposed this a fixed and determi- it to law to the court looked state In that case not contested. nation unilat- see had intended allow Company provide will claim that written notice “mutual Mid-South’s capacity growth additional over dealing served to effect a course of mod- and above Normal Load Growth at ex- the terms of the written con- ification of “duty isting Delivery Points of its extent part tract” as that, and will establish new Points whether or proposed ascertain not where, such Delivery at sound existing conflicted increase principles arrangement engineering economic .” contractual installation of such at would dictate 515 F.2d at capacity or new Points of 1109. Delivery required if all facilities raises question before us provide service the affected loads ap brief. in its Intervenor’s (HA) one belonged supplier. pears, brief12 both addition, will, appeal to dismiss its when from its decision by Customer, requested provide 1973 order after the from the June addi- Com capacity, entered its tional over mission had October and No and above Normal orders, existing at an Load Growth vember 1973 SLEMCO feels Point of Delivery adequately interests are or establish a new vindi Point of Delivery ruling, the FPC’s on facilities necessary cated other capacity there is no such additional grounds, addi- Aug. 1, Delivery Point justi- deliveries after tional cannot be ceiling for ruling do under the We affirm not con fied standards of the last A; paragraph provided contention based sentence of sider the SLEMCO gives impact of the course of dealing— Customer assurance of reve- necessary nue having justify no need to do so to sustain the invest- jurisdiction having required no ment for the FPC’s facilities or argument equal makes a cash advance pursue respect the to- facilities, such tal cost of or a July 31, deliveries between June 15 and combi- nation of revenue assurance and cash Any

advance. cash advance shall be by Company refunded at rate of THE Y. THE EFFECT OF Viothof the amount of such advance AGREEMENT LETTER until year each total refund is com- We now to turn the FPC’s interpreta- said pleted are, or until facilities tion of agreement. letter Since Customer, the election no longer this turns on the language of three of utilized to Customer, service to paragraphs set A, out in Exhibit at- whichever is sooner. The ownership of agreement, tached to we quote will shall said facilities remain with Com- these in full: (HB) pany. Upon reasonable advance written no- Upon reasonable advance written no- pro- Customer will tice from Company, tice to may Customer aban- capacity at the vide additional Points any of Delivery may don Point or re- Delivery specified of in Article I as duce the capacity previous- amount of Normal Load Growth Customer’s war- ly under specified this Agreement for additions. Normal rants such Load of Delivery, provided Point mean in growth shall kilo- Growth capacity so abandoned or reduced is to maximum 15-minute watts of demands from be delivered another Point of De- highest of 15%above the not in excess livery is supplied which by Company. at that such demand established Point abandonment Such or reduction in ca- Delivery during preceding of cal- pacity shall become effective on the year. Upon reasonable advance endar specified by date Customer the no- Br. at Intvr. than 12 not sooner months tice, Although the did not have the notice is received such respond directly the date to to the termi- after occasion (HD) Company. pressed by contentions now Gulf nology States, provide it did a reasonable and argues, and SLEMCO interpretation of the agree- consistent promises, found, Gulf interpretation Under the FPC’s ment. addi- B, “provide to A and paragraphs committed, is States crite- specified when capacity” tional circumstances, specified supply SLEM- States committed met ria were with additional CO both facilities and power. electric of amounts actual deliver needed, delivery points, where and with contends Gulf States corresponding deliveries of the load supplement it commits merely which the growth for facilities are to be which electric- through facilities physical Significantly, used. commitment de- effect has no it and delivered ity is is linked to scribed HA in ar- demand on the Growth,” Load defined in “Normal terms original of III ticle of “kilowatts of maximum 15-minute de- Paragraph B mands.” commits Gulf not free of ambi- are paragraphs The “additional capacity” interpretation can each and guities, Normal Load Growth above when phras- to isolated by reference supported gives “assurance of revenue” example, Gulf For es. “makes a cash advance equal or to the installation of to “the A’s reference If total cost” or a combination of the two. (emphasis capacity” Both criteria assume increased deliveries reference added), and HD’s The “revenue” power. of which SLEM- capacity. Gulf States “abandonment” is to assure will presumably CO flow clearly refer phrasings these argues energy, additional sales of and it is structures, thus indicate physical project reasonable facilities, rather than a transmission would undertake the risk of cash ad- contemplated. are electricity, flow only where it is assured an in- vances “reduction,” as talks of DH supply electricity. creased “abandonment,” capacity, well lessening to refer to a said can thus be B “the And discusses flow. power H Although the application of the necessary such additional facilities Mobile-Sierra-Memphis principles to a that “facilities” and implying capacity,” given primarily is a matter of concepts. separate “capacity” law, where the decision involves the in parties’ terpretation intent as re argues language contract, vealed in the of a a distinction draws between proper to defer to the Commission’s physical which refers to the “capacity,” expertise decision is “amply sup capability individual size ported factually both “commitment,” legally.” delivery points, Pipe Line Co. v. Memphis United to Gulf States’ maximum which refers Division, Light, Gas & Water delivery points. obligation for As we 79 S.Ct. at 201.13 seen, Deference explanation does not sat- have appropriate particularly for all the isfactorily account terminolo- is the technical one of question whether agreement. in the letter More- gy used a contract modification is intended to over, it has been raised for the first time original fixed court; eliminate demand ceil presented it was not this before ing, growth, so as to accommodate load in Gulf re- to the Commission States’ questions fact, than the mixed rather rehearing FPC’s October quest law, policy that are raised when the point. or at other order FMC, U.S.App.D.C. Freight v. 130 Ass’n 397 F.2d Atlantic Westbound 13. See also North concerned liveries contract dispute is kinds of maximum, primary focus of arrangements practices Gulf that application must concern in consider in States’ was that interpretation a contract 1950 contract as determining whether as a fixed-rate, rather than the Mobile-Sierra FPC’s subse is of whole that quent conclusion type.14 Memphis ceiling.16 removed demand that neither a full are satisfied We adequately responded The Commission hearing nor an expanded evidentiary States, by the issues raised pointing underlying the of the reasons statement the “June 14 order only out that ad necessary conclusion Commission’s dressed itself to the contract between rights. The Com vindicate prior as it existed to the Au investigation has instituted mission gust 1 effective date of the agree determine inter alia 206 to under § 51), (J.A. ment” once the de con whether the Gulf States —SLEMCO ceiling eliminated, mand the Mobile- low as to adversely rates are so required cases Sierra rates fixed At stage interest. public affect applied the contract be across the question turned on now under review board. document, August 1970 effect of the policy or disputed factual rather than The Commission was not asked on Although argued, matters.15 reconsideration to elaborate on the basis application rehearing, interpretation in its for its the ceiling had 9, 1973, order review explanation October was been eliminated. While the with the Commission’s inconsistent of this conclusion in the order issued Oc of increased rates approval cursory,17 for de- tober 19th is we per- are not Rayburn Coop Compare Dam Electric Allegan County 14. Sam 15. Citizens for v. (FPC supra U.S.App.D.C. must consider erative v. FPC 414 F.2d 1125 parties although dealings between course 16. “As reflected the affidavit attached here- incorporated contract); practices into not herein, incorporated to and Gulf States un- (contract FPC, supra rejected for Landsdale v. derstood at the time of execution of the let- filing by be considered for Mobile- FPC must ter filing in 1970 and at the time of its Light purposes); Power Richmond & v. Sierra right go in that it had the FPC, supra (contract that ties interstate rates the Commission to increase rates when it contemplates rates and contract to state unilateral increase only regard needed relief not ies in to deliver- only possible after 206- excess the contract maximum limit per type hearing commission do not state stated in the contract but as to de- upon filing increases mit unlimited liveries within the contract maximum limit 205). with the FPC under also.” Rayburn portion discussed in of Sam Application Rehearing, Gulf States’ Motion acknowledged the def- the court note Investigation, Hearing for Relief, Extraordinary of the Commission due the decision erence Order, and Motion for Clarification of it,” disagree with because felt “constrained its examination of E-8121, Docket No. Oct. J.A. pointed “ines- capably that the Commis- conclusion” 17. “At issue parties. contention, intent of the [SLEMCO’s] had misread the sion 169 in its -, U.S.App.D.C. rehearing, at at F.2d Agreement Citing extends the term of the FPC’s “well-known” “distaste for the [SLEM- doctrine,” CO’s] with Gulf the court Mobile-Sierra foúnd that at charges the rates and tract ceiling contained in the Commission had the con- “ may charitably ‘attempted be termed an and eliminates the what contract demand ’ by straining doctrine around the run” “end unmistakably of that is a contract variety transform the Sierra agree- Memphis-type into Agreement Our review of the indicates ment.” it does extend [SLEMCO’s] contract 1005,citing At-, Pow- Richmond 515 F.2d at and does remove the limitations as FPC, supra, Light at demand the contract.” er & These considerations are at 495. J.A. 27-28. bar, where the FPC inapplicable the case interpretation of the contract presented an has accept agreement we as reasonable. cially Although the Commission should be correct. court suaded does customarily semantic ex not make a detailed assume a sup- required favorable record, egesis developed by petition plementary of the kind the facts before us proceedings are such we er. In the context should do so. whole, agency’s path may “the reason Accordingly, I concur in the result discerned,”18 ably be sufficiently to reached the majority opinion. requirement satisfy the it have engaged in “genuinely reasoned decision- making.”

Affirmed.

TAMM, (concurring Judge Circuit result). parts majority I concur in I—III of the TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE opinion significant in the result. The CORPORATION, Petitioner, LINE in this ease is whether the Federal issue arbitrary Power Commissionwas and ca pricious failing explain why the COMMISSION, FEDERAL POWER between Gulf Respondent. 8,000 Slemco eliminated the ceiling original kilowatt on the No. 73-1626. Transportation, Bowman Inc. v. Ar See United Court of Appeals, Freight System, Inc., kansas-Best District of Columbia Circuit. 281, 285-86, S.Ct. 42 L.Ed.2d The effect of the Commis Argued Nov. 1974. sion’s action was to extend the fixed-rate Sept. Decided characterization of the delivery approximately to the electricity. part

kilowatts of III See majority opinion. the majority As observes,

correctly ex Commission’s fact,

planation “cursory.”

order itself does not us with

guideposts might from which we discern agency’s reasoning.

Nevertheless, I am convinced

reading of the letter we to this case to the

were remand exposition enlargement

for a further reasoning,

of its the ultimate result

would be identical with that reached Thus, present opinion. the need for

finality and for the elimination of mar-

ginal questions agency from crowded outweighs any

dockets benefits to be remand,

gained by especially since appears

Commission’sconclusion to be fa- FCC, Corp. v. Id. Television Boston

18. Greater F.2d denied, 403 U.S. 91 S.Ct. cert. L.Ed.2d

Case Details

Case Name: Gulf States Utilities Company v. Federal Power Commission, Southwest Louisiana Electric Membership Corporation, Intervenor

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Aug 22, 1975

Citation: 518 F.2d 450

Docket Number: 74-1160

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.