# Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. Public Service Commission

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 20, 1980 · 447 U.S. 530

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427996

## Case

- **Full name:** Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of New York
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 20, 1980
- **Citations:** 447 U.S. 530; 34 P.U.R.4th 208; 6 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1518; 100 S. Ct. 2326; 65 L. Ed. 2d 319; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 6
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Marshall
- **Judges:** Powell, Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Stevens, Blackmun, Rehnquist
- **Cited by:** 685 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/9427996

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “a communication may be offensive in two different ways,” in that some speech, “even though elegantly phrased in dulcet tones, [is] offensive simply because the listener disagrees with the speaker’s message,” while other speech is offensive “[findependently of …
- concluding that a utility company’s bill containing factual statements on matters such as the use of nuclear power was fully protected under the-First Amendment because it concerned the ‘arena of public discussion,’ even though the statements could influence consumer’s choices
- holding that when a private company "utilize[s] its own billing envelopes to promulgate its views on controversial issues of public policy,” such as nuclear energy, the state's complete ban of bill inserts that discussed "political matters" could not withstand strict scrutiny
- holding content-based a regulation that barred utility company bill inserts expressing “opinions or viewpoints on controversial issues of public policy” but did not bar “topics that are not ‘controversial issues of public policy’ ”
- finding unconstitutional a rule promulgated by a public utilities commission which prohibited public utility companies from including -with their monthly bills documents that discussed controversial issues of public policy

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Marshall,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion. I write separately to emphasize that our decision today in no way addresses the question whether the Commission may exclude the costs of bill inserts from the rate base, nor does it intimate any view on the appropriateness of any allocation of such costs the Commission might choose to make. Ante, at 543. The Commission did not rely on the argument that the use of bill inserts required ratepayers to subsidize the dissemination of management’s view in issuing its order, and we therefore are precluded from sustaining the order on that ground. Cf. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 95 (1943) (“[A]n administrative order cannot be upheld unless the grounds upon which the agency acted in exercising its powers were those upon which its action can be sustained”); FPC v. Texaco Inc., 417 U. S. 380, 397 (1974); FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U. S. 233, 249 (1972).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427996. Public record. Not legal advice.