Southern California Edison Company v. Federal Power Commission, Public Utilities Commission of the State of California v. Federal Power Commission

This case concerns the right of the Federal Power Commission to regulate the rates at which Southern California Edison Company sells power at wholesale to the City of Colton, California. The commission asserts its right under § 201 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824 , the pertinent portions of which are set forth in the margin. 1

*786 The City of Colton is a community of approximately eighteen thousand persons located near San Bernardino in Southern California. Colton’s municipal electric utility system purchases all of its energy from Edison under a contract dated October 1, 1945. The contract was filed with the California Public Utilities Commission and the state commission has exercised jurisdiction over all of Edison’s sales to Colton since that time. In the exercise of its jurisdiction, the state commission has, over the protest of Colton, authorized increases in Edison’s charges.

On May 9, 1958, Colton filed a petition requesting the Federal Power Commission to assert jurisdiction over the rates charged by Edison. The basis of the petition was that interstate energy was sold to Colton at wholesale and that the rates were therefore subject to Federal Power Commission…

(dissenting).

As the Court states, the Federal Power Act was passed by Congress explicitly to fill the “regulatory gap” created by Public Utilities Commission v. Attleboro Steam & Electric Co. 1 In Attleboro the Supreme Court interpreted its earlier decisions as sustaining state authority to regulate “the furnishing of gas to local consumers” in interstate commerce, but denying state power to regulate sales of gas “in wholesale quantities, not to consumers, but to distributing companies for resale to consumers.” 2

This, in any event, was the reading placed upon Attleboro by the Congress while considering the Act. It was repeatedly stated in the legislative proceedings that Attleboro, and the cases which it followed, had drawn the line separating federal and state constitutional authority between sales at “wholesale” or for “resale,” on the one hand, and “local” sales at “retail” or to the “consumer,” on the other. 3 The language of Section 201(b) reads naturally in terms of this distinction, stating that the Act is to apply to sales “at wholesale in interstate commerce” (defined as “sales for resale”), and is not to apply “to any other sale.”

The Supreme Court has described the…

310 F.2d 784 47 P.U.R.3d 82 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent. No. 17608. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Nov. 15, 1962. Rollin E. Woodbury, Harry W. Sturges, Jr., and John R. Bury, Los Angeles, Cal., Graham, James & Rolph, Boris H. Lakusta, and Alexander D. Calhoun, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner Southern Cal., Edison Co. William M. Bennett and Mary Moran Pajalich, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner Public Utilities Commission of State of Cal. Ralph S. Spritzer, Gen. Counsel, Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Solicitor, Leonard D. Eesley, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Peter H. Schiff, Milton J. Grossman, Attys., and John S. Everett, Jr., Staff Counsel, Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Wilkinson, Cragun & Barker, John W. Cragun and Reuben Goldberg, Washington, D.C., for intervenor City of Colton, Cal. Before CHAMBERS, MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Uudges. MERRILL, Circuit Judge. 1 This case concerns the right of the Federal Power Commission to regulate the rates at which Southern…