Hunt Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission
266 F.2d 232
5th Cir.
1959
Check Treatment

HUNT OIL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 17256

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 17, 1959.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1959.

266 F.2d 232

Before TUTTLE, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

Robert E. May, Washington, D. C., Ralph B. Shank, Edward L. Atkinson, Jr., George S. Finley, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner. Willard W. Gatchell, Gen. Counsel, Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Solicitor, William W. Ross, Atty., Federal Power Comm., Washington, D. C., for respondent.

likewise assures a hearing.

;
, reversed,
.

The peremptory nature of the Commission proceedings which we approve is dramatically demonstrated by the Court‘s reference to the producer‘s contentions under § 7(b). To the argument of the producer that “it engages in no service and renders no service, that it does not propose to abandon any facilities, that it has no facilities subject to the Commission‘s jurisdiction and hence it is not subject to Section 7(b) of the Act * * *” the Court holds “our decision in

, is controlling on this issue.” Accepting, for the moment, the correctness of our decision in
, that decision deals at length with minute facts concerning a specific well which was the subject of an extensive hearing. In this proceeding, without hearing without evidence, without knowing whether, in the sense of
, there is any “facility” by which the service is performed, this Court proceeds to declare that the Commission could take similar action.

The joint effect of these opinions today announced is to destroy the last remnant of the § 1(b) production and gathering exclusion. By forcing the owner of a natural resource to continue deliveries until the reservoir is exhausted, and to continue the delivery of gas if some piece of equipment effectuates the sale or its containment at the point of delivery, inevitably means that production is in the hands of the Commission. Congress has posted this as off limits to the Commission. Only Congress may make the change.

I therefore respectfully dissent.

Rehearing denied: JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

HUNT OIL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 17256.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 17, 1959.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1959.

266 F.2d 232

JONES, Circuit Judge.

JONES, Circuit Judge.

This is a companion case to the four cases decided today which are styled

;
;
; and
.

In material respects the facts in this case are not different from those in

. In the
a new contract for supplying natural gas became effective upon the expiration of an earlier contract. Here a contract was cancelled before its expiration date and superseded by a subsequent agreement fixing a higher rate. The principles announced in the
are, a fortiori, applicable in this case. For the reasons assigned in the opinion in the
, the orders of the Federal Power Commission are

Affirmed.

HUNT OIL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 17256.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 17, 1959.

266 F.2d 232

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge (dissenting).

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge (dissenting).

For dissenting opinion see

.

To that I would add the following:

I agree with the Court‘s implicit holding that Hunt did not have the right to terminate existing jurisdiction and power of the Federal Power Commission to regulate the initial contract by the agreed cancellation prior to its expiration date. But Hunt, like the others, was entitled to a new Certificate on the “new” contract on and after the expiration date originally fixed in the initial contract. To this denial my dissent, therefore, applies with equal force.

Rehearing denied: JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

S. W. RICHARDSON, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 17049.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 17, 1959.

266 F.2d 233

Before TUTTLE, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

Gene M. Woodfin, J. Evans Attwell, Houston, Tex. (Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Searls, Houston, Tex., on the brief), for petitioner. William W. Ross, Atty., Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Solicitor, Willard W. Gatchell, Gen. Counsel, Federal Power Comm., Washington, D. C., for respondent.

JONES, Circuit Judge.

This is a companion case to the four cases decided today which are styled

;
;
; and
.

The factual situation is here different from the other cases in that, when Richardson‘s filing of the new contract as an initial rate schedule was rejected and his application for a new certificate was likewise rejected he appealed from the Commission‘s orders. He did not, as did the petitioners in the companion cases, make an alternative filing of the new contract as a rate change. This difference does not require the application of any different principles than those upon which our decision was based in

. For the reasons assigned in the opinion in that case, the