This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Mobil Oil Corp. v. Federal Power Commission | |
|---|---|
| Case name | Mobil Oil Corp. v. Federal Power Commission |
| Citation | 417 U.S. 283 (1974) |
| Decided | 1974 |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
| Litigants | Mobil Oil Corporation v. Federal Power Commission |
| Prior | Decisions below from United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
| Holding | Commission's adjustment of price ceilings arbitrary and capricious |
| Majority | William O. Douglas |
| Laws applied | Natural Gas Act of 1938 |
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Federal Power Commission
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Federal Power Commission was a 1974 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the scope of administrative review under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Natural Gas Act of 1938 regarding rate-making by the Federal Power Commission. The case involved price adjustments for natural gas sales by Mobil Corporation and challenged the Federal Power Commission's methodology in setting maximum lawful prices under statutory ceilings. The Court's ruling clarified standards of agency factfinding, evidentiary reliance, and the role of courts in reviewing administrative adjudications.
In the early 1970s, disputes over regulated energy prices touched multiple actors including Mobil Corporation, the Federal Power Commission, pipeline companies such as Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, and state bodies like the New York Public Service Commission. The factual matrix involved sales contracts governed by the Natural Gas Act of 1938 and regulatory proceedings under rules modeled on the Administrative Procedure Act and prior precedent from FPC v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. and Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.. Parties litigated interpretations of cost-of-service methodologies that referenced accounting standards from the Securities and Exchange Commission and tax treatments under the Internal Revenue Code. Proceedings passed through the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit before reaching the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Court, with an opinion authored by Justice William O. Douglas, reviewed the Federal Power Commission’s determination allocating price adjustments among sellers and purchasers and evaluated whether the agency had relied upon substantial evidence in the record. The majority examined evidentiary submissions from corporate witnesses, filings by public utility trade groups such as the American Gas Association, and briefs presented by intervenors including state regulatory commissions and commercial entities like Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (a predecessor affiliate of Exxon Corporation). The Court reversed aspects of the Commission’s orders, finding key factual conclusions unsupported and some methodological shifts inadequately explained under prevailing standards from Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB and Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe.
The Court held that the Federal Power Commission must base rate adjustments on substantial evidence within the administrative record and must articulate reasoned decisionmaking consistent with statutory commands in the Natural Gas Act of 1938. Relying on precedents such as Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., and SEC v. Chenery Corp., the opinion emphasized agency obligation to explain departures from prior methodology and to reconcile conflicting expert testimony, including accounting critiques from Ernst & Young-style auditors and economic analyses rooted in work by scholars affiliated with Harvard University and University of Chicago faculties. The Court applied the arbitrariness and capriciousness standard from the Administrative Procedure Act and confirmed judicial authority to remand when findings lack record support, referencing interpretive frameworks from Skidmore v. Swift & Co. and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. even as it distinguished those doctrines.
The decision influenced regulatory practice across agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Interstate Commerce Commission by reinforcing rigorous standards for administrative factfinding and explanation. It affected litigation strategies for energy companies like ExxonMobil affiliates and utilities represented by firms such as Sullivan & Cromwell and Cravath, Swaine & Moore. The ruling contributed to the body of administrative law cited in later decisions involving rate regulation, evidentiary standards, and agency remands, alongside influential cases like Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co..
Subsequent jurisprudence applied the case when courts reviewed agency orders under the Administrative Procedure Act and when litigants challenged rate-setting by regulatory bodies including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (successor to the Federal Power Commission). Related Supreme Court and appellate decisions that built on or clarified themes from the case include Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, Skidmore v. Swift & Co., Chenery Corp. v. United States, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., and SEC v. Chenery Corp. (Chenery II). The case remains cited in administrative law treatises from institutions such as Columbia Law School and Yale Law School and continues to inform litigation before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and petitions for review to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Category:United States administrative case law Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:1974 in United States case law