UNITED GAS PIPE LINE CO. v. LOUISIANA PUB. SERV. COM’N, 242 La. 187 (1961)

135 So.2d 267

UNITED GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

No. 45775.Supreme Court of Louisiana.
December 11, 1961.

APPEAL FROM NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, HONORABLE COLEMAN LINDSEY, J.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Joseph H. Kavanaugh, Asst. to the Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellant.

C. Huffman Lewis, John M. Madison, Vernon W. Woods, E. J. Freiberg, Saunders Gregg, Willis L. Meadows, Wilkinson, Lewis, Madison Woods, Shreveport, for appellee.

HAWTHORNE, Justice.

[1] This is an appeal by the Louisiana Public Service Commission from a judgment[1] of the district court reversing the commission’s Order No. 8394 only insofar as it used United Gas Pipe Line Company’s systemwide average cost of purchased gas in fixing rates for natural gas service in the Southwest Louisiana Zone.[2] [2] This case is a sequel or companion to United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm., decided by this court in May of this year, 241 La. 687, 130 So.2d 652. That case involved rates for intrastate natural gas service rendered by the same plaintiff in its New Orleans Zone; otherwise the controlling facts are the same in both cases. It is pertinent to note, however, as stated in United’s brief in the instant case, that “All gas sold by United in the Southwest Louisiana Zone is produced, transported and sold in South Louisiana. United brings no gas into the Southwest Louisiana Zone, or into South Louisiana, from any source and it could not do so unless it reversed the flow of gas in its pipelines leading away from South Louisiana and ceased serving a great number of its customers. United’s facilities constitute two separate systems with smaller interconnecting facilities. One system runs north from Southern Louisiana, and the other runs northeast and north from Southern Texas”. [3] The commission here, as it did in the prior case, takes the position that the gas supply costs assigned to the zone should be based upon the average of United’s system-wide cost excluding the unconnected Northwest Mississippi Zone. In the former case this court rejected this contention of the commission and supported its holding by reasons and authorities which we need not reiterate here. In this case the commission advances no new arguments to support its position, having submitted this case without oral argument and relying entirely on its brief filed in the former case. The former decision is controlling here. [4] For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.