# American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Federal Power Commission

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · January 21, 1974 · 494 F.2d 925

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7279270

## Case

- **Full name:** AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, (two cases), Tucson Gas & Electric Company, Intervenors SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Johns-Manville Products Corp., Intervenors PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, General Motors Corporation, Intervenors SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, General Motors Corporatoin, Intervenors SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Tucson Gas and Electric Co., Intervenors AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, El Paso Natural Gas Co. CITY OF WILLCOX and Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, American Smelting and Refining Co., Intervenors SOUTHERN UNION GAS COMPANY v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, American Smelting and Refining Co. Intervenors DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER OF the CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Shell Oil Company, Intervenors
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** January 21, 1974
- **Citations:** 494 F.2d 925; 161 U.S. App. D.C. 6; 5 P.U.R.4th 129; 4 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20348; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10491
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Fahy
- **Judges:** Fahy, MacKinnon, Tamm
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7279270

## Opinion text

FAHY, Senior Circuit Judge
(concurring) :
I concur except with respect to the scope of the remand. Upon my study of the record I conclude that the court should not disturb the Commission’s interim plan regarding those parts thereof designated as follows in the court’s opinion: (B) Withdrawals from Storage, (E) Volumetric Limits, and (F) Penalties. I would not require further consideration of these three subjects. In all other respects I concur in Judge Tamm’s opinion for the court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7279270. Public record. Not legal advice.