Before WILBER K. MILLER, DANAHER and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
Lexington, Georgetown, Covington, Newport, Mt. Sterling,
Paris, Irvine, Ravenna, Cynthiana, Ashland, Dayton,
Catlettsburg, Bellevue, Winchester, Ft. Thomas and Ft.
Mitchell, Kentucky, Intervenors.
Date Decided: June 25, 1957.
DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE MILLER
WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge.
Portsmouth Gas Company, a retail distributor of natural gas, asks us to review and set aside an order of the Federal Power Commission which permitted its sole supplier, United Fuel Gas Company, to amend its demand-commodity rate form by providing for a long-term contract demand instead of the previously effective annually ascertained maximum-day demand. United Fuel also proposed substantial increases in both demand and commodity charges but, on motion of Portsmouth and two other intervenors, the Commission reserved that part of the proposal for future determination, and confined the hearing which preceded the order to the single issue raised by the proposed change in the demand billing formula. So, the actual rate level was not fixed, changed or affected by the order.
This is one of three petitions for review of the order which were heard together but, because of marked differences, are being treated in separate opinions. The other two were Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. Federal Power Comm., No. 13,515, 1957, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 246 F.2d 688, and Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Federal Power Comm., No. 13,525, 1957, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 7, 246 F.2d 694.
This case is unlike the Cincinnati Gas case, No. 13,515, where Cincinnati Gas and its subsidiary alleged aggrievement only by the long-term billing commitment feature of the contract demand component, and we held that apprehension of possible future injury through changes that might conceivably occur in economic conditions, but are not presently anticipated, did not give the petitioners standing to seek review of the Commission's order.
The present case is also unlike the Dayton case, No. 13,525, where we held that Dayton, which does not purchase gas from United Fuel or from Central Kentucky Natural Gas Company, whose rate form was also altered by the order, was not directly affected by the order and so lacked standing to seek review.
Portsmouth says in its brief it "is aggrieved by the orders *fn1 of the Commission in that its all requirements contract is unilaterally modified and rescinded, its property taken without due process of law and it is unreasonably and ...