Northern Natural Gas Company, a Corporation v. Federal Power Commission

225 F.2d 886, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4272
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 16, 1955
Docket14743_1
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 225 F.2d 886 (Northern Natural Gas Company, a Corporation v. Federal Power Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Northern Natural Gas Company, a Corporation v. Federal Power Commission, 225 F.2d 886, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4272 (8th Cir. 1955).

Opinion

JOHNSEN, Circuit Judge.

1. Our previous order herein of October 7, 1954, 215 F.2d 892, directed each of 10 Intervenor — Distributors (Central Electric and Gas Co., Central Natural Gas Co., Elkhorn Valley Gas Co., Interstate Power Co., Iowa Public Service Co., Minneapolis Gas Co., Minnesota Natural Gas Co., Nebraska Natural Gas Co., Northwestern Light and Power Co., and Western States Utilities Co.) to make calculation of the amounts which it had collected in increased rates, during the stay period, from each of its firm customers, who constituted present gas consumers, under the test of being still patrons of the distributor, and of the interest allocable thereto, which amounts and interest would be included in the sum that we required Northern Natural Gas Co. to repay to such distributors and which they were to be permitted under our order to receive and give receipt for.

2. We provided in our order for the filing of a report by each distributor, after such calculations had been made, supplying us with information as to the number of customers covered by the calculations and of the total amount of funds involved therein, and also as to what sum, out of the increased-rate funds collected by the distributor from its firm customers and directed by us to be paid over to it by Northern Natural, would on this basis, together with the interest applicable thereto, be left in the distributor’s hands in relation to persons who had ceased to be its customers — with a further requirement in our order that the distributor also should set out in its report what it regarded as the reasonable *888 cost and expense to it of having made the calculations above referred to and of thereafter, on the court’s order, effecting refunds to such present firm customers “on the basis of crediting the customer’s account in such amount as the Court may direct, and not on the. basis of making refund by mail and check.” 215 F.2d at page 900.

3. The distributors referred to thereafter filed such reports, showing receipt of these funds from Northern Natural and the calculations which they had made in respect thereto, and we thereupon set the matter down for hearing and supportive showing on what allowances ought fairly to be made in the situation to the distributors, “in reimbursement of cost and expense”, out of the funds, as contemplated by our previous order, that would on this basis be remaining in their hands from the rate increases made against persons who had since ceased to be customers of the distributors, and tp such further extent, if any, as might prove to be necessary, out of the amount of the refunds which we otherwise intended to permit to be made to those who were still customers of the distributor. This is the question which now, after the holding of such a hearing, is before us for consideration and disposition.

4. The question, of course, is merely one of the aspects or incidents of the general purpose and plan of our previous order to effect an equitable, practical and complete disposition of all of the funds collected under our stay order, and hence there must correlatively be kept in mind, in dealing with it, the whole of that objective and its ultimate accomplishment. In order that the channel thus being traveled may be kept entirely clear and the general flow thereof may, as part of the present consideration, be properly fostered, it is perhaps desirable to repeat and reemphasize some of the things said in our previous order and also to add any further facilitating directions that may presently seem necessary, under our previously reserved,.administering jurisdiction.

5. Such action as has heretofore been or as may hereafter be taken by us in the situation is predicated perspectively, as we have heretofore declared, 215 F.2d at page 901, “on the basis of the stay order having been specifically designed to avoid the recognition or vesting of any right in anyone as to the funds involved, except as such rights afterwards should be recognized and established by order of the court, in the light of persuading equities and practical administrative realities”. We further directly stated and held that “No (legal) right is accordingly recognized by the court as existing in any ultimate consumer by virtue of the operation of the stay order * * * ”. Ibid.

6. in what has thus far been done in the situation, we have refused to allow Northern Natural to reap any possible benefit from having obtained the stay order or from the rate increases which it put into effect thereunder. It also has been our purpose, on the situation which obtained at the time our stay order terminated, similarly not to permit any distributor to profit pecuniarily from such rate increases as it had made to its gas customers in relation to Northern Natural’s increases under the stay. At the same time, as we have above indicated, in granting the stay and allowing the fund to accumulate, we did so on the basis and condition that, not alone nó distributors, but no ultimate consumer either, should have or be able to claim any legal right as such to any part of the funds which we were allowing Northern Natural to collect and accumulate, and that, if it ultimately became necessary for us to have to make disposition of the fund, we thus would be left free, and would have a responsibility only, to effect such a disposition as would in the situation ■ substantially, equitably, and subject to administrative practicalities, serve- the purposes of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 717 et seq., generally.

7. In the judicial, administrative and equitable realities involved in the existing circumstances, the effect of our order of October 7, 1954 was to find and hold, and we again affirm this here, that, so far as it seemed reasonably, practicably and economically feasible and possible *889 for us to go, in attempting relatively to view equities as a basis of establishing rights for disposition purposes (and without such an establishment by us we recognize no legal or direct rights as existing or being subject to be claimed to any part of such funds), and on the basis that it appeared to us that this would substantially, on the realities involved, serve the general purposes of the Natural Gas Act, the following steps were allowed to be taken in the situation: (a) We permitted each of the distributors, who had put rate increases into effect in relation to Northern Natural’s actions under the stay, to receive back from Northern Natural, together with interest, the amount which had been collected from it by Northern Natural, with such funds to be held and disposed of by the distributor in accordance with our immediate directions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
225 F.2d 886, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northern-natural-gas-company-a-corporation-v-federal-power-commission-ca8-1955.