Majority — Douglas J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The primary issue in these cases concerns the validity under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 ( 52 Stat. 821,15 U. S. C. § 717) of a rate order issued by the Federal Power Commission reducing the rates chargeable by Hope Natural Gas Co., 44 P. U. R. (N. S.) 1 . On a petition for review of the order made pursuant to § 19 (b) of the Act, the
Hope is a West Virginia corporation organized in 1898. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Standard Oil Co. (N. J.). Since the date of its organization, it has been in the business of producing, purchasing and marketing natural gas in that state.[1] It sells some of that gas to local consumers in West Virginia. But the great bulk of it goes to five customer companies which receive it at the West Virginia line and distribute it in Ohio and in Pennsylvania.[2] In July 1938 the cities of Cleveland and Akron filed complaints with the Commission charging that the rates collected by Hope from East Ohio Gas Co. (an affiliate of Hope which distributes gas in Ohio) were excessive and unreasonable. Later in 1938 the Commission on its own motion instituted an investigation to determine the reasonableness of all of Hope's interstate rates. In March
1 Hope produces about one-third of its annual gas requirements and purchases the rest under some 300 contracts.
2 These five companies are the East Ohio Gas Co., the Peoples Natural Gas Co., the River Gas Co., the Fayette County Gas Co., and the Manufacturers Light & Heat Co. The first three of these companies are, like Hope, subsidiaries of Standard Oil Co. (N. J.). East Ohio and River distribute gas in Ohio, the other three in Pennsylvania. Hope’s approximate sales in m. c. f. for 1940 may be classified as follows: Local West Virginia sales. 11,000,000 East Ohio. 40,000,000 Peoples. 10,000,000 River. 400,000 Fayette. 860,000 Manufacturers. 2,000,000 Hope’s natural gas is processed by Hope Construction & Refining Co., an affiliate, for the extraction of gasoline and butane. Domestic Coke Corp., another affiliate, sells coke-oven gas to Hope for boiler fuel.
On May 28,1942, the Commission entered its order and made its findings. Its order required Hope to decrease its future interstate rates so as to reflect a reduction, on an annual basis, of not less than $3,609,857 in operating revenues. And it established “just and reasonable” average rates per m. c. f. for each of the five customer companies.[3] In response to the prayer of the City of Cleveland the Commission also made findings as to the lawfulness of past rates, although concededly it had no authority under the Act to fix past rates or to award reparations. 44 P. U. R. (N. S.) p. 34. It found that the rates collected by Hope from East Ohio were unjust, unreasonable, excessive and therefore unlawful, by $830,892 during 1939, $3,219,-551 during 1940, and $2,815,789 on an annual basis since 1940. It further found that just, reasonable, and lawful rates for gas sold by Plope to East Ohio for resale for ultimate public consumption were those required
3 These required minimum reductions of 74 per m. c. f. from the 36.5«S and 35.5^ rates previously charged East Ohio and Peoples, respectively, and 34 per m. c. f. from the 31.54 rate previously charged Fayette and Manufacturers.
The Commission established an interstate rate base of $33,712,526 which, it found, represented the “actual legitimate cost” of the company’s interstate property less depletion and depreciation and plus unoperated acreage, working capital and future net capital additions. The Commission, beginning with book cost, made certain adjustments not necessary to relate here and found the “actual legitimate cost” of the plant in interstate service to be $51,957,416, as of December 31, 1940. It deducted accrued depletion and depreciation, which it found to be $22,328,016 on an “economic-service-life” basis. And it added $1,392,021 for future net capital additions, $566,105 for useful unoperated acreage, and $2,125,000 for working capital. It used 1940 as a test year to estimate future revenues and expenses. It allowed over $16,000,000 as annual operating expenses — about $1,300,000 for taxes, $1,460,000 for depletion and depreciation, $600,000 for exploration and development costs, $8,500,000 for gas purchased. The Commission allowed a net increase of $421,-160 over 1940 operating expenses, which amount was to take care of future increase in wages, in West Virginia property taxes, and in exploration and development costs. The total amount of deductions allowed from interstate revenues was $13,495,584.
Hope introduced evidence from which it estimated reproduction cost of the property at $97,000,000. It also presented a so-called trended “original cost” estimate which exceeded $105,000,000. The latter was designed “to indicate what the original cost of the property would have been if 1938 material and labor prices had prevailed throughout the whole period of the piecemeal construction of the company’s property since 1898.” 44 P. IT. R. (N. S.), pp. 8-9. Hope estimated by the “per cent condition” method accrued depreciation at about 35% of
4 The book reserve for interstate plant amounted at the end of 1938 to about $18,000,000 more than the amount determined by the Commission as the proper reserve requirement. The Commission also noted that “twice in the past the company has transferred amounts aggregating $7,500,000 from the depreciation and depletion reserve to surplus. When these latter adjustments are taken into account, the excess becomes $25,500,000, which has been exacted from the ratepayers over and above the amount required to cover the consumption of property in the service rendered and thus to keep the investment unimpaired.” 44 P. U. R. (N. S.), p. 22.
5 That contention was based on the fact that “every single dollar in the depreciation and depletion reserves” was taken “from gross operating revenues whose only source was the amounts charged customers in the past for natural gas. It is, therefore, a fact that the depreciation and depletion reserves have been contributed by the customers and do not represent any investment by Hope.” Id., p. 40. And see Railroad Commission v. Cumberland Tel. & T. Co., 212 U. S. 414 , 424-425; 2 Bonbright, Valuation of Property (1937), p. 1139.
Hope’s estimate of original cost was about $69,735,-000 — approximately $17,000,000 more than the amount found by the Commission. The item of $17,000,000 was made up largely of expenditures which prior to December 31, 1938, were charged to operating expenses. Chief among those expenditures was some $12,800,000 expended
6 The Commission noted that the case was “free from the usual complexities involved in the estimate of gas reserves because the geologists for the company and the Commission presented estimates of the remaining recoverable gas reserves which were about one per cent apart.” 44 P. U. R. (N. S.), pp. 19-20. The Commission utilized the “straight-line-basis” for determining the depreciation and depletion reserve requirements. It used estimates of the average service lives of the property by classes based in part on an inspection of the physical condition of the property. And studies were made of Hope’s retirement experience and maintenance policies over the years. The average service lives of the various classes of property were converted into depreciation rates and then applied to the cost of the property to ascertain the portion of the cost which had expired in rendering the service. The record in the present case shows that Hope is on the lookout for new sources of supply of natural gas and is contemplating an extension of its pipe line into Louisiana for that purpose. The Commission recognized in fixing the rates of depreciation that much material may be used again when various present sources of gas supply are exhausted, thus giving that property more than scrap value at the end of its present use.
Hope contended that it should be allowed a return of not less than 8%. The Commission found that an 8% return would be unreasonable but that 6%% was a fair rate of return. That rate of return, applied to the rate base of $33,712,526, would produce $2,191,314 annually, as compared with the present income of not less than $5,801,171.
The Circuit Court of Appeals set aside the order of the Commission for the following reasons.
7 See Uniform System of Accounts prescribed for Natural Gas Companies effective January 1, 1940, Account No. 332.1.
The Circuit Court of Appeals also held that the Commission had no power to make findings as to past rates in aid of state regulation. But it concluded that those findings were proper as a step in the process of fixing future rates. Viewed in that light, however, the findings were deemed to be invalidated by the same errors which vitiated the findings on which the rate order was based.
Order Reducing Rates. Congress has provided in § 4 (a) of the Natural Gas Act that all natural gas rates subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission “shall be just and reasonable, and any such rate or charge that is not just and reasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.” Sec. 5 (a) gives the Commission the power, after hearing, to determine the “just and reasonable rate” to be thereafter observed and to fix the rate by order. Sec. 5 (a) also empowers the Commission to order a “decrease where existing rates are unjust, . . . unlawful, or are not the lowest reasonable rates.” And Congress has provided in § 19 (b) that on review of these rate orders the “finding of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.” Congress, however, has provided no formula by which the “just and reasonable” rate is to be determined. It has not filled in the
When we sustained the constitutionality of the Natural Gas Act in the Natural Gas Pipeline Go. case, we stated that the “authority of Congress to regulate the prices of commodities in interstate commerce is at least as great under the Fifth Amendment as is that of the States under the Fourteenth to regulate the prices of commodities in intrastate commerce.” 315 U. S. p. 582. Rate-making is indeed but one species of price-fixing. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113 , 134. The fixing of prices, like other applications of the police power, may reduce the value of the property which is being regulated. But the fact that the value is reduced does not mean that the regulation is invalid. Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135 , 155-157; Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502 , 523-539 and cases cited. It does, however, indicate that “fair value” is the end product of the process of rate-making not the starting point as the Circuit Court of Appeals held. The heart of the matter is that rates cannot be made to depend upon “fair value” when the value of the going enterprise depends on earnings under whatever rates may be anticipated.[9]
8 Sec. 6 of the Act comes the closest to supplying any definite criteria for rate making. It provides in subsection (a) that, “The Commission may investigate and ascertain the actual legitimate cost of the property of every natural-gas company, the depreciation therein, and, when found necessary for rate-making purposes, other facts which bear on the determination of such cost or depreciation and the fair value of such property.” Subsection (b) provides that every natural-gas company on request shall file with the Commission a statement of the “original cost” of its property and shall keep the Commission informed regarding the “cost” of all additions, etc.
9 We recently stated that the meaning of the word “value” is to be gathered “from the purpose for which a valuation is being made. Thus the question in a valuation for rate making is how much a utility *602 will be allowed to earn. The basic question in a valuation for reorganization purposes is how much the enterprise in all probability can earn.” Institutional Investors v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 318 U. S. 523 , 540.
We have already noted that Hope is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Standard Oil Co. (N. J.). It has no securities outstanding except stock. All of that stock has been owned by Standard since 1908. The par amount presently outstanding is approximately $28,000,000 as compared with the rate base of $33,712,526 established by
As we have noted, the Commission fixed a rate of return which permits Hope to earn $2,191,314 annually. In determining that amount it stressed the importance of maintaining the financial integrity of the company. It considered the financial history of Hope and a vast array of data bearing on the natural gas industry, related businesses, and general economic conditions. It noted that the yields on better issues of bonds of natural gas companies sold in the last few years were “close to 3 per cent,” 44 P. U. R. (N. S.), p. 33. It stated that the company was a “seasoned enterprise whose risks have been minimized” by adequate provisions for depletion and depreciation (past and present) with “concurrent high profits,” by “protected established markets, through affiliated distribution companies, in populous and industrialized areas,” and by a supply of gas locally to meet all require
In view of these various considerations we cannot say that an annual return of $2,191,314 is not “just and reasonable” within the meaning of the Act, Rates which enable the company to operate successfully, to maintain its financial integrity, to attract capital, and to compensate its investors for the risks assumed certainly cannot be condemned as invalid, even though they might produce only a meager return on the so-called “fair value” rate base. In that connection it will be recalled that Hope contended for a rate base of $66,000,000 computed on reproduction cost new. The Commission points out that if that rate base were accepted, Hope’s average rate of return for the four-year period from 1937-1940 would amount to 3.27%. During that period Hope earned an annual average return of about 9%. on the average investment. It asked for no rate increases. Its properties were well maintained and operated. As the Commission says, such a modest rate of 3.27% suggests an “inflation of the base on which the rate has been computed.” Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 292 U. S. 290 , 312. Cf. Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., supra, p. 164. The incongruity between the actual operations and the return computed on the basis of reproduction cost suggests that the Commission was wholly justified in rejecting the latter as the measure of the rate base.
In view of this disposition of the controversy we need not stop to inquire whether the failure of the Commission to add the $17,000,000 of well-drilling and other costs to
Only a word need be added respecting depletion and depreciation. We held in the Natural Gas Pipeline Co. case that there was no constitutional requirement “that the owner who embarks in a wasting-asset business of limited life shall receive at the end more than he has put into it.” 315 U. S. p. 593. The Circuit Court of Appeals did not think that that rule was applicable here because Hope was a utility required to continue its service to the public and not scheduled to end its business on a day certain as was stipulated to be true of the Natural Gas Pipeline Co. But that distinction is quite immaterial. The ultimate exhaustion of the supply is inevitable in the case of all natural gas companies. Moreover, this Court recognized in Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., supra, the propriety of basing annual depreciation on cost.[10] By such a procedure the utility is made whole and the integrity of its investment maintained.[11] No more is required.[12] We cannot approve the contrary holding
10 Chief Justice Hughes said in that case (292 U. S. pp. 168-169): “If the predictions of service life were entirely accurate and retirements were made when and as these predictions were precisely fulfilled, the depreciation reserve would represent the consumption of capital, on a cost basis, according to the method which spreads that loss over the respective service periods. But if the amounts charged to operating expenses and credited to the account for depreciation reserve are excessive, to that extent subscribers for the telephone service are required to provide, in effect, capital contributions, not to make good losses incurred by the utility in the service rendered and thus to keep its investment unimpaired, but to secure additional plant and equipment upon which the utility expects a return.”
11 See Mr. Justice Brandeis (dissenting) in United Railways Co. v. West, 280 U. S. 234 , 259-288, for an extended analysis of the problem.
12 It should be noted that the Act provides no specific rule governing depletion and depreciation. Sec. 9 (a) merely states that the Commission “may from time to time ascertain and determine, and by order fix, the proper and adequate rates of depreciation and *607 amortization of the several classes of property of each natural-gas company used or useful in the production, transportation, or sale of natural gas.”
The Position of West Virginia. The State of West Virginia, as well as its Public Service Commission, intervened in the proceedings before the Commission and participated in the hearings before it. They have also filed a brief amicus curiae here and have participated in the argument at the bar. Their contention is that the result achieved by the rate order “brings consequences which are unjust to West Virginia and its citizens” and which “unfairly depress the value of gas, gas lands and gas leaseholds, unduly restrict development of their natural resources, and arbitrarily transfer their properties to the residents of other states without just compensation therefor.”
West Virginia points out that the Hope Natural Gas Co. holds a large number of leases on both producing and un-operated properties. The owner or grantor receives from the operator or grantee delay rentals as compensation for postponed drilling. When a producing well is successfully brought in, the gas lease customarily continues indefinitely for the life of the field. In that case the operator pays a stipulated gas-well rental or in some cases a gas royalty equivalent to one-eighth of the gas marketed.[13] Both the owner and operator have valuable property interests in thé gas which are separately taxable under West Virginia law. The contention is that the reversionary interests in the leaseholds should be represented in the rate proceedings since it is their gas which is being sold in interstate
13 See Simonton, The Nature of the Interest of the Grantee Under an Oil and Gas Lease (1918), 25 W-. Va. L. Quar. 295.
14 West Penn Power Co. v. Board of Review, 112 W. Va. 442 , 164 S.E.862.
15 W. Va. Rev. Code of 1943, ch. 11, Art. 13, §§ 2a, 3a.
West Virginia insists that in neglecting this aspect of the problem the Commission failed to perform the function which Congress entrusted to it and that the case should be remanded to the Commission for a modification of its order.[16]
We have considered these contentions at length in view of the earnestness with which they have been urged upon us. We have searched the legislative history of the Natural Gas Act for any indication that Congress entrusted to the Commission the various considerations which West Virginia has advanced here. And our conclusion is that Congress did not.
We pointed out in Illinois Natural Gas Co. v. Public Service Co., 314 U. S. 498 , 506, that the purpose of the Natural Gas Act was to provide, “through the exercise of the national power over interstate commerce, an agency for regulating the wholesale distribution to public service companies of natural gas moving interstate, which this Court had declared to be interstate commerce not subject to certain types of state regulation.” As stated in the House Report the “basic purpose” of this legislation was “to occupy” the field in which such cases as Missouri v.
16 West Virginia suggests as a possible solution (1) that a “going concern value” of the company’s tangible assets be included in the rate base and (2) that the fair market value of gas delivered to customers be added to the outlay for operating expenses and taxes.
The primary aim of this legislation was to protect consumers against exploitation at the hands of natural gas companies. Due to the hiatus in regulation which resulted from the Kansas Gas Co. case and related decisions state commissions found it difficult or impossible to discover what it cost interstate pipe-line companies to deliver gas within the consuming states; and thus they were thwarted in local regulation. H. Rep. No. 709, supra, p. 3. Moreover, the investigations of the Federal Trade Commission had disclosed that the majority of the pipeline mileage in the country used to transport natural gas, together with an increasing percentage of the natural gas supply for pipe-line transportation, had been acquired by a handful of holding companies.[17] State commissions, independent producers, and communities having or seeking the service were growing quite helpless against these combinations.[18] These were the types of problems with which those participating in the hearings were preoccupied.[19] Congress addressed itself to those specific evils.
17 S. Doc. 92, Pt. 84-A, ch. XII, Final Report, Federal Trade Commission to the Senate pursuant to S. Res. No. 83, 70th Cong., 1st Sess.
18 S. Doc. 92, Pt. 84-A, chs. XII, XIII, op. cit., supra, note 17.
19 See Hearings on H. R. 11662, Subcommittee of House Committee on Interstate & Foreign Commerce, 74th Cong., 2d Sess.; Hearings on H. R. 4008, House Committee on Interstate & Foreign Commerce, 75th Cong., 1st Sess.
20 The power to investigate and ascertain the “actual legitimate cost” of property (§6), the requirement as to books and records (§8), control over rates of depreciation (§9), the requirements for periodic and special reports (§10), the broad powers of investigation (§ 14) are among the chief powers supporting the rate-making function.
These provisions were plainly designed to protect the consumer interests against exploitation at the hands of private natural gas companies. When it comes to cases of abandonment or of extensions of facilities or service, we may assume that, apart from the express exemptions[21] contained in § 7, considerations of conservation are material to the issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity. But the Commission was not asked here for a certificate of public convenience and necessity under § 7 for any proposed construction or extension. It was faced with a determination of the amount which a private operator should be allowed to earn from the sale of natural gas across state lines through an established distribution system. Secs. 4 and 6, not § 7, provide the standards for that determination. We cannot find in the words of the Act or in its history the slightest intimation or suggestion that the exploitation of consumers by private operators through the maintenance of high rates should be allowed to continue provided the producing states obtain indirect benefits from it. That apparently was the Commission’s view of the matter, for the same arguments advanced here were presented to the Commission and not adopted by it.
We do not mean to suggest that Congress was unmindful of the interests of the producing states in their natural gas supplies when it drafted the Natural Gas Act. As we have said, the Act does not intrude on the domain traditionally reserved for control by state commissions; and the Federal Power Commission was given no authority over
21 Apart from the grandfather clause contained in §7 (c), there is the provision of § 7 (f) that a natural gas company may enlarge or extend its facilities within the “service area” determined by the Commission without any further authorization.
22 See Act of July 7,1943, c. 194, 57 Stat. 383 , containing an “Interstate Compact to Conserve Oil and Gas” between Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Illinois, Colorado, and Kansas.
23 As we have pointed out, § 7 (c) was amended by the Act of February 7, 1942 ( 56 Stat. 83 ) so as to require certificates of public convenience and necessity not only where the extensions were being made to markets in which natural gas was already being sold by another company but to other situations as well. Considerations of conservation entered into the proposal to give the Act that broader scope. H. Rep. No. 1290, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 2-3. And see Annual Report, Federal Power Commission (1940) pp. 79, 80; Baum, The Federal Power Commission and State Utility Regulation (1942), p. 261. The bill amending § 7 (c) originally contained a subsection (h) reading as follows: “Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to affect the authority of a State within which natural gas is produced to authorize or require the construction or extension of facilities for the transportation and sale of such gas within such State: Provided, however, That the Commission, after a hearing upon complaint or' upon its own motion, may by order forbid any intrastate construction or extension by any natural-gas company which it shall find will prevent such company from rendering adequate service to its customers in interstate or foreign commerce in territory already being served.” See Hearings on H. R. 5249, House Committee on Interstate & Foreign Commerce, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 7, 11, 21, 29, *614 32-33. In explanation of its deletion tbe House Committee Report stated, pp. 4-5: “Tbe increasingly important problems raised by tbe desire of several States to regulate tbe use of tbe natural gas produced therein in tbe interest of consumers witbin sucb States, as against tbe Federal power to regulate interstate commerce in the interest of both interstate and intrastate consumers, are deemed by the committee to warrant further intensive study and probably a more detailed and comprehensive plan for the handling thereof than that which would have been provided by the stricken subsection.”
It is hardly necessary to add that a limitation on the net earnings of a natural gas company from its interstate business is not a limitation on the power of the producing state either to safeguard its tax revenues from that industry[24] or to protect the interests of those who sell their gas to the interstate operator.[25] The return which the Com
24 We have noted that in the annual operating expenses of some $16,000,000 the Commission included West Virginia and federal taxes. And in the net increase of $421,160 over 1940 operating expenses allowed by the Commission was some $80,000 for increased West Virginia property taxes. The adequacy of these amounts has not been challenged here.
25 The Commission included in the aggregate annual operating expenses which it allowed some $8,500,000 for gas purchased. It also allowed about $1,400,000 for natural gas production and about $600,000 for exploration and development. It is suggested, however, that the Commission in ascertaining the cost of Hope’s natural gas production plant-proceeded contrary to § 1 (b) which provides that the Act shall not apply to "the production or gathering of natural gas.” But such valuation, like the provisions for operating expenses, is essential to the rate-making function as customarily performed in this country. Cf. Smith, The Control of Power Rates in the United States and England (1932), 159 The *615 Annals 101. Indeed § 14 (b) of the Act gives the Commission the power to “determine the propriety and reasonableness of the inclusion in operating expenses, capital, or surplus of all delay rentals or other forms of rental or compensation for unoperated lands and leases.”
It is suggested that the Commission has failed to perform its duty under the Act in that it has not allowed a return for gas production that will be enough to induce private enterprise to perform completely and efficiently its functions for the public. The Commission, however, was not oblivious of those matters. It considered them. It allowed, for example, delay rentals and exploration and development costs in operating expenses.[26] No serious attempt has been made here to show that they are inadequate. We certainly cannot say that they are, unless we are to substitute our opinions for the expert judgment of the administrators to whom Congress entrusted the decision. Moreover, if in light of experience they turn out to be inadequate for development of new sources of supply, the doors of the Commission are open for increased allowances. This is not an order for all time. The Act contains machinery for obtaining rate adjustments. § 4.
But it is said that the Commission placed too low a rate on gas for industrial purposes as compared with gas for domestic purposes and that industrial uses should be discouraged. It should be noted in the first place that the rates which the Commission has fixed are Hope’s interstate wholesale rates to distributors, not interstate rates to industrial users[27] and domestic consumers. We hardly
26 See note 25, supra.
27 The Commission has expressed doubts over its power to fix rates on “direct sales to industries” from interstate pipelines as distinguished from “sales for resale to the industrial customers of distributing companies.” Annual Report, Federal Power Commission (1940), p. 11.
28 Sec. 1 (b) of the Act provides: “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.” And see §2 (6), defining a “natural-gas company,” and H. Rep. No. 709, supra, pp. 2,3.
29 The wasting-asset characteristic of the industry was recognized prior to the Act as requiring the inclusion of a depletion allowance among operating expenses. See Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 292 U. S. 398 , 404-405. But no such theory *617 of rate-making for natural gas companies as is now suggested emerged from the cases arising during the earlier period of regulation.
It is finally suggested that the rates charged by Hope are discriminatory as against domestic users and in favor of industrial users. That charge is apparently based on § 4 (b) of the Act which forbids natural gas companies from maintaining “any unreasonable difference in rates, charges, service, facilities, or in any other respect, either as between localities or as between classes of service.” The power of the Commission to eliminate any such unreasonable differences or discriminations is plain. § 5 (a). The Commission, however, made no findings under § 4 (b). Its failure in that regard was not challenged in the petition to review. And it has not been raised or argued here by any party. Hence the problem of discrimination has no proper place in the present decision. It will be time enough to pass on that issue when it is presented to us. Congress has entrusted the administration of the Act to the Commission, not to the courts. Apart from the requirements of judicial review it is not
30 The Commission has- been alert to the problems of conservation in its administration of the Act. It has indeed suggested that it might be wise to restrict the use of natural gas “by functions rather than by areas.” Annual Report (1940) p. 79. The Commission stated in that connection that natural gas was particularly adapted to certain industrial uses. But it added that the general use of such gas “under boilers for the production of steam” is “.under most circumstances of very questionable social economy.” Ibid.
' Findings as to the Lawfulness of Past Rates. As we have noted, the Commission made certain findings as to the lawfulness of past rates which Hope had charged its interstate customers. Those findings were made on the complaint of the City of Cleveland and in aid of state regulation. It is conceded that under the Act the Commission has no power to make reparation orders. And its power to fix rates admittedly is limited to those “to be thereafter observed and in force.” § 5 (a). But the Commission maintains that it has the power to make findings as to the lawfulness of past rates even though it has no power to fix those rates.[31] However that may be, we do not think that these findings were reviewable under § 19 (b) of the Act. That section gives any. party “aggrieved by an order” of the Commission a review “of such order” in the circuit court of appeals for the circuit where the natural gas company is located or has its principal place of business or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. We do not think that the findings in question fall within that category.
The Court recently summarized the various types of administrative action or determination reviewable as orders under the Urgent Deficiencies Act of October 22,
31 The argument is that §4 (a) makes “unlawful” the charging of any rate that is not just and reasonable. And § 14 (a) gives the Commission power to investigate any matter “which it may find necessary or proper in order to determine whether any person has violated” any provision of the Act. Moreover, § 5 (b) gives the Commission power to investigate and determine the cost of production or transportation of natural gas in cases where it has “no authority to establish a rate governing the transportation or sale of such natural gas.” And § 17 (c) directs the Commission to “make available to the several State commissions such information and reports as may be of assistance in State regulation of natural-gas companies.” For a discussion of these points by the Commission see 44 P. XJ. R. (N. S.) pp. 34-35.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Opinion of
We agree with the Court’s opinion and would add nothing to what has been said but for what is patently a wholly gratuitous assertion as to Constitutional law in the dissent of Mr. Justice Frankfurter. We refer to the statement that “Congressional acquiescence to date in the doctrine of Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota, supra, may fairly be claimed.” That was the case in which a majority of this Court was finally induced to expand the meaning
Dissent — Reed J.
dissenting:
This case involves the problem of rate making under the Natural Gas Act. Added importance arises from the obvious fact that the principles stated are generally applicable to all federal agencies which are entrusted with the determination of rates for utilities. Because my views differ somewhat from those of my brethren, it may be of some value to set them out in a summary form.
The Congress may fix utility rates in situations subject to federal control without regard to any standard except the constitutional standards of due process and for taking private property for public use without just compensation. Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332 , 350. A Commission, however, does not have this freedom of action. Its powers are limited not only by the constitutional standards but also by the standards of the delegation. Here the standard added by the Natural Gas Act is that the rate be “just
When the phrase was used by Congress to describe allowable rates, it had relation to something ascertainable. The rates were not left to the whim of the Commission. The rates fixed would produce an annual return and that annual return was to be compared with a theoretical just and reasonable return, all risks considered, on the fair value of the property used and useful in the public service at the time of the determination.
Such an abstract test is not precise. The agency charged with its determination has a wide range before it could properly be said by a court that the agency had disregarded statutory standards or had confiscated the property of the utility for public use. Cf. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418 , 461-66, dissent. This is as Congress intends. Rates are left to an experienced agency particularly competent by training to appraise the amount required.
The decision as to a reasonable return had not been a source of great difficulty, for borrowers and lenders reached such agreements daily in a multitude of situations; and although the determination of fair value had been troublesome, its essentials had been worked out in fairness to investor and consumer by the time of the en
1 Natural Gas Act, § 4 (a), 52 Stat. 821 , 822, 15 U. S. C. § 717 (a).
2 52 Stat. 821,824,15 Ü. S. C. § 717e: “(a) The Commission may investigate and ascertain the actual legitimate cost of the property of every natural-gas company, the depreciation therein, and, when found necessary for rate-making purposes, other facts which bear on the determination of such cost or depreciation and the fair value of such property. “(b) Every natural-gas company upon request shall file with the Commission an inventory of all or any part of its property and a statement of the original cost thereof, and shall keep the Commission informed regarding the cost of all additions, betterments, extensions, and new construction.”
It was already clear that when rates are in dispute, "earnings produced by rates do not afford a standard for decision.” 289 U. S. at 305 . Historical cost, prudent investment and reproduction cost[3] were all relevant factors in determining fair value. Indeed, disregarding the pioneer investor’s risk, if prudent investment and reproduction cost were not distorted by changes in price levels or technology, each of them would produce the same result. The realization from the risk of an investment in a speculative field, such as natural gas utilities, should be reflected in the present fair value.[4] The amount of evidence to be admitted on any point was of course in the agency’s reasonable discretion, and it was free to give its own weight to these or other factors and to determine from all the evidence its own judgment as to the necessary rates.
3 “Reproduction cost” has been variously defined, but for rate-making purposes the most useful sense seems to be, the minimum amount necessary to create at the time of the inquiry a modern plant capable of rendering equivalent service. See I Bonbright, Valuation of Property (1937) 152. Reproduction cost as the cost of building a replica of an obsolescent plant is not of real significance. “Prudent investment” is not defined by the Court. It may mean the sum originally put in the enterprise, either with or without additional amounts from excess earnings reinvested in the business.
4 It is of no more than bookkeeping significance whether the Commission allows a rate of return commensurate with the risk of the original investment or the lower rate based on current risk and a capitalization reflecting the established earning power of a suceessful company and the probable cost of duplicating its services. Cf. A. T. & T. Co. v. United States, 299 U. S. 232 . But the latter is the traditional method.
My disagreement with the Court arises primarily from its view that it makes no difference how the Commission reached the rate fixed so long as the result is fair and reasonable. For me the statutory command to the Commission is more explicit. Entirely aside from the constitutional problem of whether the Congress could validly delegate its rate-making power to the Commission, in toto and without standards, it did legislate in the light of the relation of fair and reasonable to fair value and reasonable return. The Commission must therefore make its findings in observance of that relationship.
The Federal Power Commission did not, as I construe their action, disregard its statutory duty. They heard the evidence relating to historical and reproduction cost and to the reasonable rate of return, and they appraised its weight. The evidence of reproduction cost was rejected as unpersuasive, but from the other evidence they found a rate base, which is to me a determination of fair value. On that base the earnings allowed seem fair and reasonable. So far as the Commission went in appraising the property employed in the service, I find nothing in the result which indicates confiscation, unfairness or unreasonableness. Good administration of rate-making agencies under this method would avoid undue delay and render revaluations unnecessary except after violent fluctuations of price levels. Rate making under this method has been subjected to criticism. But until Congress changes the standards for the agencies, these rate-making bodies should continue the conventional theory of rate
Dissent — Frankfurter J.
But a major error, I think, was committed in the disregard by the Commission of the investment in exploratory operations and other recognized capital costs. These were not considered by the Commission because they were charged to operating expenses by the company at a time when it was .unregulated. Congress did not direct the Commission in rate making to deduct from the rate base capital investment which had been recovered during the unregulated period through excess earnings. In my view this part of the investment should no more have been disregarded in the rate base than any other capital investment which previously had been recovered and paid out in dividends or placed to surplus. Even if prudent investment throughout the life of the property is accepted as the formula for figuring the rate base, it seems to me illogical to throw out the admittedly prudent cost of part of the property because the earnings in the unregulated period had been sufficient to return the prudent cost to the investors over and above a reasonable return. What would the answer be under the theory of the Commission and the Court, if the only prudent investment in this utility had been the seventeen million capital charges which are now disallowed?
For the reasons heretofore stated, I should affirm the action of the Circuit Court of Appeals in returning the proceeding to the Commission for further consideration and should direct the Commission to accept the disallowed capital investment in determining the fair value for rate-making purposes.
dissenting:
My brother Jackson has analyzed with particularity the economic and social aspects of natural gas as well as
For our society the needs that are met by public utilities are as truly public services as the traditional governmental functions of police and justice. They are not less so when these services are rendered by private enterprise under governmental regulation. Who ultimately determines the ways of regulation, is the decisive aspect in the public supervision of privately-owned utilities. Foreshadowed nearly sixty years ago, Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 307 ,331, it was decided more than fifty years ago that the final say under the Constitution lies with the judiciary and not the legislature. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418 .
While legal issues touching the proper distribution of governmental powers under the Constitution may always be raised, Congressional acquiescence to date in the doctrine of Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota, supra, may fairly be claimed. But in any event that issue is not here in controversy. As pointed out in the opinions of my brethren, Congress has given only limited authority to the Federal Power Commission and made the exercise of that authority subject to judicial review. The Commission is authorized to fix rates chargeable for natural gas. But the rates that it can fix must be “just and reasonable.” § 5 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U. S. C. § 717 (d). Instead of making the Commission’s rate determinations final, Con
To what sources then are the Commission and the courts to go for ascertaining the standards relevant to the regulation of natural gas rates? It is at this point that Me. Justice Jackson’s analysis seems to me pertinent. There appear to be two alternatives. Either the fixing of natural gas rates must be left to the unguided discretion of the Commission so long as the rates it fixes do not reveal a glaringly bad prophecy of the ability of a regulated utility to continue its service in the future. Or the Commission’s rate orders must be founded on due consideration of all the elements of the public interest which the production and distribution of natural gas involve just because it is natural gas. These elements are reflected in the Natural Gas Act, if that Act be applied as an entirety. See, for
It will not do to say that it must all be left to the skill of experts. Expertise is a rational process and a rational process implies expressed reasons for judgment. It will little advance the public interest to substitute for the hodge-podge of the rule in Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466 , an encouragement of conscious obscurity or confusion in reaching a result, on -the -assumption that so long as the result appears harmless its basis is irrelevant. That may be an appropriate attitude when state action is challenged as unconstitutional. Cf. Driscoll v. Edison Co., 307 U. S. 104 . But it is not to be assumed that it was the design of Congress to make the accommodation of the conflicting interests exposed in Me. Justice Jackson’s opinion the occasion for a blind clash of forces or a partial assessment of relevant factors, either before the Commission or here.
The objection to the Commission’s action is not that the rates it granted were too low but that the range of its vision was too narrow. And since the issues before the Commission involved no less than the total public interest, the proceedings before it should not be judged by narrow conceptions of common law pleading. And so I conclude that the case should be returned to the Commission. In order to enable this Court to discharge its duty of reviewing the Commission’s order, the Commission should set forth with explicitness the criteria by which it is guided
Certainly the theory of the court below that ties rate-making to the fair-value-reproduction-cost formula should be overruled as in conflict with Federal Power Commission v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co.[1] But the case should, I think, be the occasion for reconsideration of our rate-making doctrine as applied to natural gas and should be returned to the Commission, for further consideration in the light thereof. •>
The Commission appears to have understood the effect of the two opinions in the Pipeline case to be at least authority and perhaps direction to fix natural gas rates by exclusive application of the “prudent investment” rate base theory. This has no warrant in the opinion of the Chief Justice for the Court, however, which released the Commission from subservience to “any single formula or combination of formulas” provided its order, “viewed in its entirety, produces no arbitrary result.” 315 U. S. at 586 . The minority opinion I understood to advocate the “prudent investment” theory as a sufficient guide in a natural gas case. The view was expressed in the court below that since this opinion was not expressly controverted it must have been approved.[2] I disclaim this im
1 315 U.S. 575 .
2 Judge Dobie, dissenting below, pointed out that the majority opinion in the Pipeline case “contains no express discussion of the Prudent Investment Theory” and that the concurring opinion contained a clear one, and said, “It is difficult for me to believe that the majority of the Supreme Court, believing otherwise, would leave such a statement unchallenged.” The fact that two other Justices had as matter of record in our books long opposed the reproduction cost theory of rate bases and had commented favorably on the pru *629 dent investment theory may have influenced that conclusion. See opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Driscoll v. Edison Light & Power Co., 307 U. S. 104 , 122, and my brief as Solicitor General in that case. It should be noted, however, that these statements were made, not in a natural gas case, but in an electric power case — a very important distinction, as I shall try to make plain.
I
Solutions of these cases must consider eccentricities of the industry which gives rise to them and also to the Act of Congress by which they are governed.
The heart of this problem is the elusive, exhaustible, and irreplaceable nature of natural gas itself. Given sufficient money, we can produce any desired amount of railroad, bus, or steamship transportation, or communications facilities, or capacity for generation of electric energy, or for the manufacture of gas of a kind. In the service of such utilities one customer has little concern with the amount taken by another, one’s waste will not deprive another, a volume of service can be created equal to demand, and today’s demands will not exhaust or lessen capacity to serve tomorrow. But the wealth of Midas and the wit of man cannot produce or reproduce a natural gas field. We cannot even reproduce the gas, for our manufactured product has only about half the heating value per unit of nature’s own.[3]
Natural gas in some quantity is produced in twenty-four states. It is consumed in only thirty-five states, and is
3 Natural gas from the Appalachian field averages about 1,050 to 1,150 B. T. U. content, while by-product manufactured gas is about 530 to 540. Moody’s Manual of Public Utilities (1943) 1,350; Young-berg, Natural Gas (1930) 7.
The supply of the Hope Company is drawn from that old and rich and vanishing field that flanks the Appalachian mountains. Its center of production is Pennsylvania and West Virginia, with a fringe of lesser production in New York, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and the north end of Alabama. Oil was discovered in commercial quantities at a depth of only 69% feet near Titusville, Pennsylvania, in 1859. Its value then was about $16 per barrel.[5] The oil branch of the petroleum industry went forward at once, and with unprecedented speed. The area productive of oil and gas was roughed out by the drilling of over 19,000 “wildcat” wells, estimated to have cost over $222,000,000. Of these, over 18,000, or 94.9 per cent, were “dry holes.” About five per cent, or 990 wells, made discoveries of commercial importance, 767 of them resulting chiefly in oil and 223 in gas only.[6] Prospecting for many years was a search for oil, and to strike gas was a misfortune. Waste during this period and even later is appalling. Gas was regarded as having no commercial value until about 1882, in which year the total yield was valued only at about $75,000.[7] Since then, contrary to oil, which has become cheaper, gas in this field has pretty steadily advanced in price.
While for many years natural gas had been distributed on a small scale for lighting,[8] its acceptance was slow,
4 Sen. Rep. No. 1162, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 2.
5 Arnold and Kemnitzer, Petroleum in the United States and Possessions (1931) 78.
6 Id. at 62-63.
7 Id., at 61.
8 At Fredonia, New York, in 1821, natural gas was conveyed from a shallow well to some thirty people. The lighthouse at Barcelona Harbor, near what is now Westfield, New York, was at about that *631 time and for many years afterward lighted by gas that issued from a crevice. Report on Utility Corporations by Federal Trade Commission, Sen. Doc. 92, Pt. 84-A, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9.
9 In that year Pennsylvania enacted “An Act to provide for the incorporation and regulation of natural gas companies.” Penn. Laws 1885, No. 32.
10 See Steptoe and Hoffheimer’s Memorandum for Governor Corn-well of West Virginia (1917) 25 West Virginia Law Quarterly 257; see also Report on Utility Corporations by Federal Trade Commssion, Sen. Ddc. No. 92, Pt. 84-A, 70th Cong., 1st Sess.
11 Arnold and Kemnitzer, Petroleum in the United States and Possessions (1931) 73.
12 Id. at 63.
Western New York and Eastern Ohio, on the fringe of the field, had some production but relied heavily on imports from Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Pennsylvania, a producing and exporting state, was a heavy consumer and supplemented her production with imports from West Virginia. West Virginia was a consuming state, but the lion’s share of her production was exported. Thus the interest of the states in the North Appalachian supply was in conflict.
Competition among localities to share in the failing supply and the helplessness of state and local authorities in the presence of state lines and corporate complexities is a part of the background of federal intervention in the industry.[14] West Virginia took the boldest measure. It legislated a priority in its entire production in favor of its own inhabitants. That was frustrated by an injunc
13 Id. at 64.
14 See Report on Utility Corporations by Federal Trade Commission, Sen. Doc. No. 92, Pt. 84-Á, 70th Cong., 1st Sess.
15 Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553 . For conditions there which provoked this legislation, see 25 West Virginia Law Quarterly 257.
16 People ex rel. Pavilion Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 188 App. Div. 36 , 176 N. Y. S. 163 .
17 Village of Falconer v. Pennsylvania Gas Co., 17 State Department Reports (N. Y.) 407.
18 See, for example, Public Service Commission v. Iroquois Natural Gas Co., 108 Misc. 696 , 178 N. Y. S. 24 ; Park Abbott Realty Co. v. Iroquois Gas Co., 102 Misc. 266 , 168 N. Y. S. 673 ; Public Service Commission v. Iroquois Natural Gas Co., 189 App. Div. 545 , 179 N. Y. S. 230 .
19 People ex rel. Pennsylvania Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 196 App. Div. 514 , 189 N. Y. S. 478 .
20 East Ohio Gas Co. v. Akron, 81 Ohio St. 33 , 90 N. E. 40 ; Newcomerstown v. Consolidated Gas Co., 100 Ohio St. 494 , 127 N. E. 414 ; Gress v. Village of Ft. Loramie, 100 Ohio St. 35 , 125 N. E. 112 ; Jamestown v. Pennsylvania Gas Co., 263 F. 437 , 264 F. 1009 . See also United Fuel Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission, 278 U. S. 300 , 308.
21 The New York Public Service Commission said: “While the transportation of natural gas through pipe lines from one state, to another *634 state is interstate commerce . . ., Congress has not taken over the regulation of that particular industry. Indeed, it has expressly excepted it from the operation of the Interstate Commerce Commissions Law (Interstate Commerce Commissions Law, section 1). It is quite clear, therefore, that this Commission can not require a Pennsylvania corporation producing gas in Pennsylvania to transport it and deliver it in the State of New York, and that the Interstate Commerce Commission is likewise powerless. If there exists such a power, and it seems that there does, it is a power vested in Congress and by it not yet exercised. There is no available source of supply for the Crystal City Company at present except through purchasing from the Potter Gas Company. It is possible that this Commission might fix a price at which the Potter Gas Company should sell if it sold at all, but as the Commission can not require it to supply gas in the State of New York, the exercise of such a power to fix the price, if such power exists, would merely say, sell at this price or keep out of the State.” Lane v. Crystal City Gas Co., 8 New York Public Service Comm. Reports, Second District, 210,212.
Utilization of natural gas of highest social as well as economic return is domestic use for cooking and water
22 Proclamation by the President of September 16, 1918; Rules and Regulations of H. A. Garfield, Fuel Administrator, September 24, 1918.
23 For example, the Iroquois Gas Corporation which formerly served Buffalo, New York, with natural gas ranging from 1050 to 1150 b. t. u. per cu. ft., now mixes a by-product gas of between 530 and 540 b. t. u. in proportions to provide a mixed gas of about 900 b. t. u. per cu. ft. For space heating or water heating its charges range from 65 cents for the first 10 m. c. f. per month to 55 cents for all above 25 m. c. f. per month. Moody’s Manual of Public Utilities (1943) 1350.
Industrial use is induced less by these qualities than by low cost in competition with other fuels. Of the gas exported from West Virginia by the Hope Company a very substantial part is used by industries. This wholesale use speeds exhaustion of supply and displaces other fuels. Coal miners and the coal industry, a large part of whose costs are wages, have complained of unfair competition from low-priced industrial gas produced with relatively little labor cost.[25]
Gas rate structures generally have favored industrial users. In 1932, in Ohio, the average yield on gas for domestic consumption was 62.1 cents per m. c. f. and on in
24 The United States Fuel Administration made the following cooking value comparisons, based on tests made in the Department of Home Economics of Ohio State University: Natural gas at 1.12 per M. is equivalent to coal at $6.50 per ton. Natural gas at 2.00 per M. is equivalent to gasoline at 27s¡ per gal. Natural gas at 2.20 per M. is equivalent to electricity at 30 per k. w. h. Natural gas at 2.40 per M. is equivalent to coal oil at 150 per gal. Use and Conservation of Natural Gas, issued by U. S. Fuel Administration (1918) 5.
25 See Brief on Behalf of Legislation Imposing an Excise Tax on Natural Gas, submitted to N. R. A. by the United Mine Workers of America and the National Coal Association.
About the time of World War I there were occasional and short-lived efforts by some hard-pressed companies to reverse this discrimination and adopt graduated rates, giving a low rate to quantities adequate for domestic use and graduating it upward to discourage industrial use.[28]
26 Brief of National Gas Association and United Mine Workers, supra note 26, pp. 35, 36, compiled from Bureau of Mines Reports.
27 From the source quoted in the preceding note the spread elsewhere is shown to be: State Industrial Domestic Illinois. 29.2 1.678 Louisiana. 10.4 59.7 Oklahoma. 11.2 41.5 Texas. 13.1 59.7 Alabama. 17.8 1.227 Georgia. 22.9 1.043
28 In Corning, New York, rates were initiated by the Crystal City Gas Company as follows: 700 for the first 5,000 cu. ft. per month; 800 from 5,000 to 12,000; $1.00 for all over 12,000. The Public Service Commission rejected these rates and fixed a flat rate of 580 per m. c. f. Lane v. Crystal City Gas Co., 8 New York Public Service Comm. Reports, Second District, 210. The Pennsylvania Gas Company (National Fuel Gas Company group) also attempted a sliding scale rate for New York consumers, net per month as follows: First 5,000 feet, 350; second 5,000 feet, 45Í; third 5,000 feet, 500; all above 15,000, 550. This was eventually abandoned, however. The company’s present scale in Pennsylvania appears to be reversed to the following net monthly rate: first 3 m. o. f., 750; next 4 m. c. f., 600; next 8 m. c. f., 550; over 15 m. c. f., 500. Moody’s Manual of Public Utilities (1943) 1350. In New York it now serves a mixed gas. For a study of effect of sliding scale rates in reducing consumption see 11 Proceedings of Natural Gas Association of America (1919) 287.
II
Congress in 1938 decided upon federal regulation of the industry. It did so after an exhaustive investigation of all aspects including failing supply and competition for the use of natural gas intensified by growing scarcity.[29] Pipelines from the Appalachian area to markets were in the control of a handful of holding company systems.[30] This created a highly concentrated control of the producers’ market and of the consumers’ supplies. While holding companies dominated both production and distribution they segregated those activities in separate
29 See Report on Utility Corporations by Federal Trade Commission, Sen. Doc. 92, Pt. 84-A, 70th Cong., 1st Sess.
30 Four holding company systems control over 55 per cent of all natural gas transmission lines in the United States. They are Columbia Gas and Electric Corporation, Cities Service Co., Electric Bond and Share Co., and Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey. Columbia alone controls nearly 25 per cent, and fifteen companies account for over 80 per cent of the total. Report on Utility Corporations by Federal Trade Commission, Sen. Doc. 92, Pt. 84-A, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., 28. In 1915, so it was reported to the Governor of West Virginia, 87 per cent of the total gas production of that state was under control of eight companies. Steptoe and Hoffheimer, Legislative Regulation of Natural Gas Supply in West Virginia, 17 West Virginia Law Quarterly 257, 260. Of these, three were subsidiaries of the Columbia system and others were subsidiaries of larger systems. In view of inter-system sales and interlocking interests it may be doubted whether there is much real competition among these companies.
The Natural Gas Act declared the natural gas business to be “affected with a public interest,” and its regulation “necessary in the public interest.”[32] Originally, and at the time this proceeding was commenced and tried, it also declared “the intention of Congress that natural gas shall be sold in interstate commerce for resale for ultimate public consumption for domestic, commercial, industrial, or any other use at the lowest possible reasonable rate consistent with the maintenance of adequate service in the public interest.”[33] While this was later dropped, there is nothing to indicate that it was not and is not still an accurate statement of purpose of the Act. Extension or improvement of facilities may be ordered when “necessary or desirable in the public interest,” abandonment of facilities may be ordered when the supply is “depleted to the extent that the continuance of service is unwarranted, or that the present or future public convenience or necessity
31 This pattern with its effects on local regulatory efforts will be observed in our decisions. See United Fuel Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission, 278 U. S. 300 ; United Fuel Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 278 U. S. 322 ; Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 292 U. S. 290 ; Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 292 U. S. 398 , and the present case.
32 15 U. S. C. § 717 (a). (Italics supplied throughout this paragraph.)
33 §7 (c), 52 Stat. 825 .
In view of the Court’s opinion that the Commission in administering the Act may ignore discrimination, it is interesting that in reporting this Bill both the Senate and the House Committees on Interstate Commerce pointed out that in 1934, on a nation-wide average the price of natural gas per m. c. f. was 74.6 cents for domestic use, 49.6 cents for commercial use, and 16.9 for industrial use.[38] I am not ready to think that supporters of a bill called attention to the striking fact that householders were being charged five times as much for their gas as industrial users only as a situation which the Bill would do nothing to remedy. On the other hand the Act gave to the Commission what the Court aptly describes as “broad powers of regulation.”
34 15 U. S. C. §717f.
35 Id., § 717c (e).
36 Id., § 717c (b).
37 Id., § 717d (a).
38 Sen. Rep. No. 1162, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 2.
III
The record shows that in 1940 Hope delivered for industrial consumption 36,523,792 m. c. f. and for domestic and commercial consumption, 50,343,652 m. c. f. I find no separate figure for domestic consumption. It served 43,767 domestic consumers directly, 511,521 through the East Ohio Gas Company, and 154,043 through the Peoples Natural Gas Company, both affiliates owned by the same parent. Its special contracts for industrial consumption, so far as appear, are confined to about a dozen big industries.
Hope’s contract with East Ohio Company is an example. Hope agrees to deliver, and the Ohio Company to take, “(a) all natural gas requisite for the supply of the domestic consumers of the Ohio Company; (b) such amounts of natural gas as may be requisite to fulfill contracts made with the consent and approval of the Hope Company by the Ohio Company, or companies which it supplies with natural gas, for the sale of gas upon special terms and conditions for manufacturing purposes.” The Ohio Company is required to read domestic customers’ meters once a month and meters of industrial customers daily and to furnish all meter readings to Hope. The Hope Company is to have access to meters of all consumers and to all of the Ohio Company’s accounts. The domestic consumers of the Ohio Company are to be fully supplied in preference to consumers purchasing for manufacturing purposes and “Hope Company can be required to supply gas to be used for manufacturing purposes only where the same is sold under special contracts which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Hope Company and which expressly provide that natural gas will be supplied thereunder only in so far as the same is not necessary to meet the requirements of domestic consumers supplied through pipe lines of the Ohio Company.” This basic contract was supplemented from time to time, chiefly as to price. The last amendment was in a letter from Hope to East Ohio in 1937. It contained a special discount on industrial gas and a schedule of special industrial contracts, Hope reserving the right to make eliminations therefrom and agreeing that others might be added from time to
The Commission took no note of the charges of discrimination and made no disposition of the issue tendered on this point. It ordered a flat reduction in the price per m. c. f. of all gas delivered by Hope in interstate commerce. It made no limitation, condition, or provision as to what classes of consumers should get the benefit of the reduction. While the cities have accepted and are defending the reduction, it is my view that the discrimination of which they have complained is perpetuated and increased by the order of the Commission and that it violates the Act in so doing.
The Commission’s opinion aptly characterizes its entire objective by saying that “bona fide investment figures now become all-important in the regulation of rates.” It should be noted that the all-importance of this theory is not the result of any instruction from Congress. When the Bill to regulate gas was first before Congress it con
39 The list of East Ohio Gas Company’s special industrial contracts thus expressly under Hope’s control and their demands are as follows: Customer Ordinary Daily Requirements. Republic Steel Corporation. 15,000,000 cu. ft. Otis Steel Company. 10,000,000 Timken Roller Bearing Co. 7,500,000 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. 7,000,000 U. S. Steel Corp. — Subsidiaries. 6,500,000 General Electric Company. 2,500,000 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. 2,000,000 Niles Rolling Mill Company. 1,500,000 Chase Brass & Copper Company. 700,000 U. S. Aluminum Company. 400,000 Mahoning Valley Steel Company. 400,000 Babcock & Wilcox Company. 400,000 Canton Stamping & Enameling Co... 350,000
The Commission contends nevertheless that the “all important” formula for finding a rate base is that of prudent investment. But it excluded from the investment base an amount actually and admittedly invested of some $17,000,000. It did so because it says that the Company recouped these expenditures from customers before the days of regulation from earnings above a fair return. But it would not apply all of such “excess earnings” to reduce the rate base as one of the Commissioners suggested. The reason for applying excess earnings to reduce the investment base roughly from $69,000,000 to $52,000,000 but refusing to apply them to reduce it from that to some $18,-000,000 is not found in a difference in the character of the earnings or in their reinvestment. The reason assigned is a difference in bookkeeping treatment many years before the Company was subject to regulation. The $17,000,000, reinvested chiefly in well drilling, was treated on the books as expense. (The Commission now requires that drilling costs be carried to capital account.) The allowed rate base thus actually was determined by the Company’s bookkeeping, not its investment. This attributes a significance to formal classification in account keeping that seems inconsistent with rational rate regulation.[40] Of
40 To make a fetish of mere accounting is to shield from examination the deeper causes, forces, movements, and conditions which should govern rates. Even as a recording of current transactions, bookkeeping is hardly an exact science. As a representation of the condition and trend of a business, it uses symbols of certainty to express values *644 that actually are in constant flux. It may be said that in commercial or investment banking or any business extending credit success depends on knowing what not to believe in accounting. Few concerns go into bankruptcy or reorganization whose books do not show them solvent and often even profitable. If one cannot rely on accountancy accurately to disclose past or current conditions of a business, the fallacy of using it as a sole guide to future price policy ought to be apparent. However, our quest for certitude is so ardent that we pay an irrational reverence to a technique which uses symbols of certainty, even though experience again and again warns us that they are delusive. Few writers have ventured to challenge this American idolatry, but see Hamilton, Cost as a Standard for Price, 4 Law and Contemporary Problems 321, 323-25. He observes that “As the apostle would put it, accountancy is all things to all men. ... Its purpose determines the character of a system of accounts.” He analyzes the hypothetical character of accounting and says “It was no eternal mold for pecuniary verities handed down from on high. It was — like logic, or algebra, or the device of analogy in the law — an ingenious contrivance of the human mind to serve a limited and practical purpose.” “Accountancy is far from being a pecuniary expression of all that is industrial reality. It is an instrument, highly selective in its application, in the service of the institution of money making.” As to capital account he observes “In an enterprise in lusty competition with others of its kind, survival is the thing and the system of accounts has its focus in solvency. . . . Accordingly depreciation, obsolescence, and other factors which carry no immediate threat are matters of lesser concern and the capital account is likely to be regarded as a secondary phenomenon. . . . But in an enterprise, such as a public utility, where continued survival seems assured, solvency is likely to be taken for granted. ... A persistent and ingenious attention is likely to be directed not so much to securing the upkeep of the physical property as to making it certain that capitalization fails in not one whit to give full recognition to every item that should go into the account.”
IV
The case before us demonstrates the lack of rational relationship between conventional rate-base formulas and natural gas production and the extremities to which regulating bodies are brought by the effort to rationalize them. The Commission and the Company each stands on a different theory, and neither ventures to carry its theory to logical conclusion as applied to gas fields.
This order is under judicial review not because we interpose constitutional theories between a State and the business it seeks to regulate, but because Congress put upon the federal courts a duty toward administration of a new federal regulatory Act. If we are to hold that a given rate is reasonable just because the Commission has said it was reasonable, review becomes a costly, time-consuming pageant of no practical value to anyone. If on the other hand we are to bring judgment of our own to the task, we should for the guidance of the regulators and the regulated reveal something of the philosophy, be it legal or economic or social, which guides us. We need not be slaves to a formula but unless we can point out a rational way of reaching our conclusions they can only be accepted as resting on intuition or predilection. I must admit that I possess no instinct by which to know the “reasonable” from the “unreasonable” in prices and must seek some conscious design for decision.
The Court sustains this order as reasonable, but what makes it so or what could possibly make it otherwise,
Our books already contain so much talk of methods of rationalizing rates that we must appear ambiguous if we announce results without our working methods. We are confronted with regulation of a unique type of enterprise which I think requires considered rejection of much conventional utility doctrine and adoption of concepts of “just and reasonable” rates and practices and of the “public interest” that will take account of the peculiarities of the business.
The Court rejects the suggestions of this opinion. It says that the Committees in reporting the bill which became the Act said it provided “for regulation along recognized and more or less standardized lines” and that there was “nothing novel in its provisions.” So saying it sustains a rate calculated on a novel variation of a rate base theory which itself had at the time of enactment of the legislation been recognized only in dissenting opinions. Our difference seems to be between unconscious innovation,[42] and the purposeful and deliberate innovation I
41 See 2 Bonbright, Valuation of Property (1937) 1112.
42 Bonbright says, ". . . the vice of traditional law lies, not in its adoption of excessively rigid concepts of value and rules of valuation, but rather in its tendency to permit shifts in meaning that are inept, or else that are ill-defined because the judges that make them will not openly admit that they are doing so.” Id., 1170.
Hope’s business has two components of quite divergent character. One, while not a conventional common-carrier undertaking, is essentially a transportation enterprise consisting of conveying gas from where it is produced to point of delivery to the buyer. This is a relatively routine operation not differing substantially from many other utility operations. The service is produced by an investment in compression and transmission facilities. Its risks are those of investing in a tested means of conveying a discovered supply of gas to a known market. A rate base calculated on the prudent investment formula would seem a reasonably satisfactory measure for fixing a return from that branch of the business whose service is roughly proportionate to the capital invested. But it has other consequences which must not be overlooked. It gives marketability and hence “value” to gas owned by the company and gives the pipeline company a large power over the marketability and hence “value” of the production of others.
The other part of the business — to reduce to possession an adequate supply of natural gas — is of opposite character, being more erratic and irregular and unpredictable in relation to investment than any phase of any other utility business. A thousand feet of gas captured and severed from real estate for delivery to consumers is recognized under our law as property of much the same nature as a ton of coal, a barrel of oil, or a yard of sand. The value to be allowed for it is the real battleground between the investor and consumer. It is from this part of the business that the chief difference between the parties as to a proper rate base arises.
Is it necessary to a “reasonable” price for gas that it be anchored to a rate base of any kind? Why did courts in the first place begin valuing “rate bases” in order to “value” something else? The method came into vogue
But if found, and by whatever method found, a rate base is little help in determining reasonableness of the price of gas. Appraisal of present value of these intangible rights to pursue fugitive gas depends on the value assigned to the gas when captured. The “present fair value” rate base, generally in ill repute,[43] is not even urged by the gas company for valuing its fields.
43 “The attempt to regulate rates by reference to a periodic or occasional reappraisal of the properties has now been tested long enough *649 to confirm the worst fears of its critics. Unless its place is .taken by s.ome more promising scheme of rate .control, the days of private. ownership undér government regulation may' be numbered.” 2 Bon-bright, Valuation of Property (1937) 1190.
Two-thirds of the gas Hope handles it buys from about 340 independent producers. It is obvious that the principle of rate-making applied to Hope’s own gas cannot be applied, and has not been applied, to the bulk of the gas Hope delivers. It is not probable that the investment of any two of these producers will bear the same ratio to their investments. The gas, however, all goes to the same use, has the same utilization value and the same ultimate price.
To regulate such an enterprise by undiscriminatingly transplanting any body of rate doctrine conceived and
As our decisions stand the Commission was justified in believing that it was required to proceed by the rate base method even as to gas in the field. For this reason the Court may not merely wash its hands of the method and rationale of rate making. The fact is that this Court, with no discussion of its fitness, simply transferred the rate base method to the natural gas industry. It happened in Newark Natural Gas & Fuel Co. v. City of Newark, Ohio, 242 U. S. 405 (1917), in which the company wanted 25 cents per m. c. f., and under the Fourteenth Amendment challenged the reduction to 18 cents by ordinance. This Court sustained the reduction because the court below “gave careful consideration to the questions of the value of the property at the time of the inquiry,” and whether the rate “would be sufficient to provide a fair return on the value of the property.” The Court said this method was “based upon principles thoroughly established by repeated decisions of this court,” citing many cases, not one of which involved natural gas or a comparable wasting natural resource. Then came issues as to state power to
Under the weight of such precedents we cannot expect the Commission to initiate economically intelligent methods of fixing gas prices. But the Court now faces a new plan of federal regulation based on the power to fix the price at which gas shall be allowed to move in interstate commerce. I should now consider whether these rules devised under the Fourteenth Amendment are the exclusive tests of a just and reasonable rate under the federal statute, inviting reargument directed to that point
Such a holding would leave the Commission to fix the price of gas in the field as one would fix maximum prices •of oil or milk or coal, or any other commodity. Such a price is not calculated to produce a fair return on the synthetic value of a rate base of any individual producer, and would not undertake to assure a fair return to any producer. The emphasis would shift from the producer to the product, which would be regulated with an eye to average or typical producing conditions in the field.
Such a price fixing process on economic lines would offer little temptation to the judiciary to become back seat drivers of the price fixing machine. The unfortunate effect of judicial intervention in this field is to divert the attention of those engaged in the process from what is economically wise to what is legally permissible. It is ■probable that price reductions would reach economically unwise and self-defeating limits before they would reach constitutional ones. Any constitutional problems growing out of price fixing are quite different than those that have heretofore been considered to inhere in rate making. A producer would have difficulty showing the invalidity of such a fixed price so long as he voluntarily continued to sell his product in interstate commerce. Should he withdraw and other authority be invoked to compel him to part with his property, a different problem would be presented.
Allowance in a rate to compensate for gas removed from gas lands, whether fixed as of point of production or as of point of delivery, probably best can be measured by a functional test applied to the whole industry. For good or ill we depend upon private enterprise to exploit these natural resources for public consumption. The function which an allowance for gas in the field should perform
The Court fears that “if we are now to tell the Commission to fix the rates so as to discourage particular uses, we would indeed be injecting into a rate case a ‘novel’ doctrine . . .” With due deference I suggest that there is nothing novel in the idea that any change in price of a service or commodity reacts to encourage or discourage its use. The question is not whether such consequences will or will not follow; the question is whether effects must be suffered blindly or may be intelligently selected, whether price control shall have targets at which it deliberately aims or shall be handled like a gun in the hands of one who does not know it is loaded.
We should recognize “price” for what it is — a tool, a means, an expedient. In public hands it has much the same economic effects as in private hands. Hope knew that a concession in industrial price would tend to build up its volume of sales. It used price as an expedient to that end. The Commission makes another cut in that same price but the Court thinks we should ignore the effect that it will have on exhaustion of supply. The fact is that in natural gas regulation price must be used to reconcile the private property right society has permitted to vest in an important natural resource with the claims of society upon it — price must draw a balance between wealth and welfare.
To carry this into techniques of inquiry is the task of the Commissioner rather than of the judge, and it certainly is no task to be solved by mere bookkeeping but requires the best economic talent available. There would doubtless be inquiry into the price gas is bringing in the
A price cannot be fixed without considering its effect on the production of gas. Is it an incentive to continue to exploit vast unoperated reserves? Is it conducive to deep drilling tests the result of which we may know only after trial? Will it induce bringing gas from afar to supplement or even to substitute for Appalachian gas?[45] Can it be had from distant fields as cheap or cheaper? If so, that competitive potentiality is certainly a relevant consideration. Wise regulation must also consider, as a private buyer would, what alternatives the producer has
44 East Ohio itself owns natural gas rights in 550,600 acres, 518,526 of which are reserved and 32,074 operated, by 375 wells. Moody’s Manual of Public Utilities (1943) 5.
45 Hope has asked a certificate of convenience and necessity to lay 1,140 miles of 22-inch pipeline from Hugoton gas fields in southwest Kansas to West Virginia to carry 285 million cu. ft. of natural gas per day. The cost was estimated at $51,000,000. Moody’s Manual of Public Utilities (1943) 1760.
But there is nothing in the law which compels a commission to fix a price at that “value” which a company might give to its product by taking advantage of scarcity, or monopoly of supply. The very purpose of fixing maximum prices is to take away from the seller his opportunity to get all that otherwise the market would award him for his goods. This is a constitutional use of the power to fix maximum prices, Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135 ; Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170 ; International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216 ; Highland v. Russell Car & Snow Plow Co., 279 U. S. 253 , just as the fixing of minimum prices of goods in interstate commerce is constitutional although it takes away from the buyer the advantage in bargaining which market conditions would give him. United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100 ; Mulford v. Smith, 307 U. S. 38 ; United States v. Rock Royal Cooperative, 307 U. S. 533 ; Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U. S. 381 . The Commission has power to fix
If we assume that the reduction in company revenues is warranted we then come to the question of translating the allowed return into rates for consumers or classes of consumers. Here the Commission fixed a single rate for all gas delivered irrespective of its use despite the fact that Hope has established what amounts to two rates — a high one for domestic use and a lower one for industrial contracts.[46] The Commission can fix two prices for interstate gas as readily as one — a price for resale to domestic users and another for resale to industrial users. This is the pattern Hope itself has established in the very contracts over which the Commission is expressly given jurisdiction. Certainly the Act is broad enough to permit two prices to be fixed instead of one, if the concept of the “public interest” is not unduly narrowed.
The Commission’s concept of the public interest in natural gas cases which is carried today into the Court’s opinion was first announced in the opinion of the minority in the Pipeline case. It enumerated only two “phases of the public interest: (1) the investor interest; (2) the consumer interest,” which it emphasized to the exclusion of all others. 315 U. S. 575 , 606. This will do well enough in dealing with railroads or utilities supplying manufactured gas, electric power, a communications service or transportation, where utilization of facilities does not impair their future usefulness. Limitation of supply, however, brings into a natural gas case another phase of the public interest that to my mind overrides both the owner
46 1 find little information as to the rates for industries in the record and none at all in such usual sources as Moody’s Manual.
Prudent price fixing it seems to me must at the very threshold determine whether any part of an allowed return shall be permitted to be realized from sales of gas for resale for industrial use. Such use does tend to level out daily and seasonal peaks of domestic demand and to some extent permits a lower charge for domestic service. But is that a wise way of making gas cheaper when, in comparison with any substitute, gas is already a cheap fuel? The interstate sales contracts provide that at times when demand is so great that there is not enough gas to go around domestic users shall first be served. Should the operation of this preference await the day of actual shortage? Since the propriety of a preference seems conceded, should it not operate to prevent the coming of a shortage as well as to mitigate its effects? Should industrial use jeopardize tomorrow’s service to householders any more than today’s? If, however, it is decided to cheapen domestic use by resort to industrial sales, should they be limited to the few uses for which gas has special values or extend also to those who use it only because it is cheaper than competitive fuels?[47] And how much cheaper should indus
47 The Federal Power Commission has touched upon the problem of conservation in connection with an application for a certificate permitting construction of a 1,500-mile pipeline from southern Texas to New York City and says: “The Natural Gas Act as presently drafted does not enable the Commission to treat fully the serious implications of such a problem. The question should be raised as to whether the *658 proposed use of natural gas would not result in displacing a less valuable fuel and create hardships in the industry already supplying the market, while at the same time rapidly depleting the country’s natural-gas reserves. Although, for a period of perhaps 20 years, the natural gas could be so priced as to appear to offer an apparent saving in fuel costs, this would mean simply that social costs which must eventually be paid had been ignored. “Careful study of the entire problem may lead to the conclusion that use of natural gas should be restricted by functions rather than by areas. Thus, it is especially adapted to space and water heating in urban homes and other buildings and to the various industrial heat processes which require concentration of heat, flexibility of control, and uniformity of results. Industrial uses to which it appears particularly adapted include the treating and annealing of metals, the operation of kilns in the ceramic, cement, and lime industries, the manufacture of glass in its various forms, and use as a raw material in the chemical industry. General use of natural gas under boilers for the production of steam is, however, under most circumstances of very questionable social economy.” Twentieth Annual Report of the Federal Power Commission (1940) 79.
If I were to answer I should say that the household rate should be the lowest that can be fixed under commercial conditions that will conserve the supply for that use. The lowest probable rate for that purpose is not likely to speed exhaustion much, for it still will be high enough to induce economy, and use for that purpose has more nearly reached the saturation point. On the other hand the demand for industrial gas at present rates already appears to be increasing. To lower further the industrial rate is merely further to subsidize industrial consumption and speed depletion. The impact of the flat reduction
There is no justification in this record for the present discrimination against domestic users of gas in favor of industrial users. It is one of the evils against which the Natural Gas Act was aimed by Congress and one of the evils complained of here by Cleveland and Akron. If Hope’s revenues should be cut by some $3,600,000 the whole reduction is owing to domestic users. If it be considered wise to raise part of Hope’s revenues by industrial purpose sales, the utmost possible revenue should be raised from the least consumption of gas. If competitive relationships to other fuels will permit, the industrial price should be substantially advanced, not for the benefit of the Company, but the increased revenues from the advance should be applied to reduce domestic rates. For in my opinion the “public interest” requires that the great volume of gas now being put to uneconomic industrial use should either be saved for its more important future domestic use or the present domestic user should have the full benefit of its exchange value in reducing his present rates.
Of course the Commission’s power directly to regulate does not extend to the fixing of rates at which the local company shall sell to consumers. Nor is such power required to accomplish the purpose. As already pointed out, the very contract the Commission is altering classifies the gas according to the purposes for which it is to be resold and provides differentials between the two classifications. It would only be necessary for the Commission to order that all gas supplied under paragraph (a) of Hope’s contract with the East Ohio Company shall be
Whether the Commission will assert its apparently broad statutory authorization over prices and discrimina-tions is, of course, its own affair, not ours. It is entitled to its own notion of the “public interest” and its judgment of policy must prevail. However, where there is ground for thinking that views of this Court may have constrained the Commission to accept the rate-base method of decision and a particular single formula as “all important” for a rate base, it is appropriate to make clear the reasons why I, at least, would not be so understood. The Commission is free to face up realistically to the nature and peculiarity of the resources in its control, to foster their duration in fixing price, and to consider future interests in addition to those of investors and present consumers. If we return this case it may accept or decline the proffered freedom. This problem presents the Commission an unprecedented opportunity if it will boldly make sound economic considerations, instead of legal and accounting theories, the foundation of federal policy. I would return the case to the Commission and thereby be.clearly quit of what now may appear to be some responsibility for perpetrating a short-sighted pattern of natural gas regulation.
Cases cited
- 134 F. 2d 287 134 F. 2d 287 p. 594, p. 597
- Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. 292 U. S. 151 p. 597
- Federal Power Commission v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. 315 U. S. 575 at 586 p. 597, p. 598, p. 599, p. 620, p. 628, p. 656
- Munn v. Illinois 94 U. S. 113 p. 601
- Block v. Hirsh 256 U. S. 135 p. 601, p. 655
- Nebbia v. New York 291 U. S. 502 p. 601, p. 602
- Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. Railroad Commission 289 U. S. 287 at 314, at 305 p. 602, p. 619, p. 622
- West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission 294 U. S. 63 p. 602
- West v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. 295 U. S. 662 p. 602
- Railroad Commission v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. 212 U. S. 414 p. 602
- Railroad Commission v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 302 U. S. 388 p. 602
- Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Wellman 143 U. S. 339 p. 603
- State ex rel. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission of Missouri 262 U. S. 276 p. 603, p. 605
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities Commission 292 U. S. 290 p. 605, p. 651
- United Railways & Electric Co. v. West 280 U. S. 234 p. 607
- Illinois Natural Gas Co. v. Central Illinois Public Service Co. 314 U. S. 498 p. 609
- Missouri ex rel. Barrett v. Kansas Natural Gas Co. 265 U. S. 298 p. 610
- Public Utilities Commission v. Attleboro Steam & Electric Co. 273 U. S. 83 p. 610
- Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States 307 U. S. 125 p. 619
- United States v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad 273 U. S. 299 at 310 p. 619
- Shannahan v. United States 303 U. S. 596 p. 619
- Wilson v. New 243 U. S. 332 p. 620
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Minnesota 134 U. S. 418 p. 621, p. 625
- Helvering v. Griffiths 318 U. S. 371 p. 622
- Stone v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 116 U. S. 307 p. 625
- Smyth v. Ames 169 U. S. 466 p. 627
- Driscoll v. Edison Light & Power Co. 307 U. S. 104 p. 627
- Pennsylvania v. West Virginia 262 U. S. 553 p. 650
- Newark Natural Gas & Fuel Co. v. City of Newark 242 U. S. 405 p. 650
- Public Utilities Commission v. Landon 249 U. S. 236 p. 651
- Pennsylvania Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission 252 U. S. 23 p. 651
- United Fuel Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission 278 U. S. 300 p. 651
- United Fuel Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission 278 U. S. 322 p. 651
- Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. Public Utilities Commission 292 U. S. 398 p. 651
- Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman 256 U. S. 170 p. 655
- International Harvester Co. of America v. Kentucky 234 U. S. 216 p. 655
- Highland v. Russell Car & Snow Plow Co. 279 U. S. 253 p. 655
- United States v. Darby 312 U. S. 100 p. 655
- Mulford v. Smith 307 U. S. 38 p. 655
- United States v. Rock Royal Co-operative, Inc. 307 U. S. 533 p. 655
- Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins 310 U. S. 381 p. 655
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'n 315 U. S. 373 p. 660
- United States v. Lowden 308 U. S. 225 p. 660