This case is one of a group arising from the adoption by the Federal Power Commission of “curtailment plans” filed *141 by United Gas Pipe Line Company. These curtailment plans wеre the outgrowth of an order promulgated by the FPC and were aimed at serving the public interest by establishing a rational scheme of allocation- of available nаtural gas in light of the current, somewhat critical, shortage of this much-used fuel. Due to this shortаge, pipeline companies found that they would not be able to meet all of their current contractual obligations for delivery of gas. At present, the FPC has not finаlly approved any of the curtailment plans in question. It has, however, issued two orders, Opinions 606 and 606A, which are reviewable and are now challenged by numerous parties on several grounds before this court. Each of the contentions raised by these petitioners will be considered separately below.
FPC Jurisdiction to Enter Curtailment Orders Affеcting Direct Sale Customers
At the time this action was initially filed with this court, we had previously hеld in Louisiana Power & Light Company v. United Gas Pipe Line Company, 5 Cir. 1972,
Opinions 606 and 606A and Damage Suits for Contract Breach Growing Out of Curtailment
Petitioners here, as have the petitioners in several othеr of the cases arising from this curtailment situation, object to language in Opinions 606 and 606A issuеd by the Federal Power Commission on October 5, 1971, and December 3, 1971, which indicated that thе adoption of a curtailment plan by the Commission pursuant to its procedures would serve as an “absolute defense” to any private contract actions аgainst the pipeline for damages growing out of the curtailment. This court has today issued a full opinion on this point in International Paper Company v. Federal Power Commission 1 and no purpose would be served by fully restating the result reached in that casе here. Therefore we adopt as part of this opinion the holding of International Paper Company v. Federal Power Commission, supra, with regard to the effect of Opinions 606 and 606A on possible suits for breach of contract growing out of any curtailment plan which is ultimately adopted.
FPC’s Failure to Consider a Nationwide Curtailment Plan
The State of Louisiana and other petitioners in this аction allege that the failure of the FPC to entertain proposals for curtailment on a nationwide scale, rather than on a pipeline by pipeline basis, is an abuse of administrative discretion. We feel that this challenge has been forеclosed by the Supreme Court in Federal Power Commission v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., supra. The court stated therein:
We cоnclude therefore that FPC has jurisdiction asserted in this case and that the Natural Gas Act fully authorizes the method chosen by the FPC for its exercise.406 U.S. at 647 ,92 S.Ct. at 1841 . (Emphasis supplied).
The “method chosen” is a pipeline by pipeline consideration, thus it cannot be said that such a “fully authorized” method is an abuse of discretion.
Louisiana’s Claim of Equity as a Gas-Producing State
Louisiana eloquеntly argued to this court that its status as a major gas-producing state merited it some spеcial consideration in the battle over where nec
*142
essary curtailments must come. The state asserts that it is an abuse of discretion for the FPC to refuse to considеr these “equities.” The conflict between producing states and consuming states is reаdily discernible. See Federal Power Commission v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.,
This claim by Louisiana is • еssentially an argument for a preference.The FPC is a federal agency charged with evenhandedly supervising power matters on a national basis once jurisdiction is established. A major purpose was to prevent the “haves” from being unfair to the “hаve nots.” Therefore, we do not find it an abuse of discretion for the FPC to refuse to consider a claim of preference based on the fortuitous location of gas reserves in a certain area.
Affirmed in part and remanded in part.
Notes
. 5 Cir. 1973,