intrastate hauls vestly exceeds returns on long-distance interstate. hauls. Essentially, Appalachian Power is asking the Commission. determine the reasonableness of rates on particular movements on the one commodity still being actually litigated in this case, namely, coal. This is not required. As stated by the Commission in Oregon Intrastate Freight Rates and Charges, 311 I.C.C. 777, 783, “it is not necessary, for general revenue purposes, to establish for each item on each freight rate a fully developed rate case. King v. United States, 344 U.S. 254, 275; United States v. Louisiana, 290 U.S. 70, 79. Our function in this kind of case is to determine whether the intrastate rates in issue are producing a fair proportionate share of revenue needed to maintain an adequate railway system." As to particular rates, the Supreme Court has stated, "the administrative arm of the Commission (would be) paralyzed, if instead of adjudicating upon the rates in a large territory on evidence deemed typical of the whole rate structure, it were obliged to consider the reasonableness of each individual rate before carrying into effect the necessary increased schedule." United States v. Louisiana, supra, at pages 75-76. In any event, the evidence. heretofore discussed amply warrants the inclusion of the intrastate rates on coal in our ultimate findings. We believe that the record amply supports the conclusions that (a) the conditions incident to the intrastate transportation of freight in West Virginia are not more favorable than those incident to the interstate transportation of freight in West Virginia; (b) that the amounts and percentages by which the interstate rates between points in West Virginia and points in adjoining States were increased as authorized in Ex Parte Nos. 262, 265, and 267 are just and reasonable; (c) that an undue burden is cast upon interstate commerce by the present intrastate rates to the extent that such intrastate rates are less than they would be if they were subject to the same respective increases as are maintained by the respondents on like interstate traffic between points in West Virginia and points in adjoining States, as authorized in Ex Parte Nos. 262, 265, and 267; and (d) that the West Virginia intrastate rates and charges cause and for the future will cause undue, unreasonable, and unjust discrimination against interstate commerce. The increases in Ex Parte Nos. 262, 265, and 267 were all ma effective for the interstate railway system under our jurisdiction prior to the implementation of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 by the President on August 15, 1971. We have found that the failure to increase intrastate rates by like amounts has caused, and is causing, an undue burden on interstate commerce pursuant to ection 13(4) of the Interstate Commerce Act. We find that the rates issue would increase the revenues of the respondents by mere franctions of 1 percent as set forth in the record and for these reasons find that the increase will be consistent with the criteria set forth in 1311. O c, paragraphs (1) through (5), of the procedures promulgated in Ex Parte No. 280 dated July 18, 1972. See order of Appellate Division 2 of September 14, 1972, in docket No. 35190, Georgia Intrastate Freight Rates, 1969. ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The increases authorized in Ex Parte Nos. 262, 265, and 267, were based on the respondents' and other railroads' need for additional revenues to meet increased operating expenses. These expenses are incurred on both interstate and intrastate traffic. The respondents here seek from the West Virginia intrastate traffic a revenue contribution to these operating expenses proportionate to the contribution made by such traffic prior to the increases authorized in Ex Parte Nos. 262, 265, and 267. The Commission has recognized such prior contribution as a valid criterion of fairness. See Intrastate Freight Rates and Charges, 1969, supra, and North Carolina Intrastate Freight Rates and Charges, 293 I.C.C. 541, 558 (1954). The evidence of record here shows that the conditions incident to the West Virginia intrastate transportation of freight are no more favorable than to such interstate transportation of freight. To the extent that the West Virginia intrastate rates and charges do not reflect Ex Parte Nos. 262, 265, and 267 increases, they are abnormally low and fail to provide their share of the needed additional revenue, and cause unjust discrimination against, and an undue burden on interstate commerce. We find that: 1. The conditions incident to the intrastate transportation of freight in West Virginia are not more favorable than those incident to interstate traffic in that State and adjoining States. 2. The amounts and percentages by which the interstate freight rates, between points in West Virginia and points in other States, were increased in Ex Parte Nos. 262, 265, and 267 are just and reasonable. The present West Virginia intrastate rates and charges imposed by the authority of that State for the intrastate transportation of property, are unduly low and are not contributing their fair share of the earnings required to yield revenue sufficient to enable the respondents, under honest, economical, and efficient management to provide adequate and efficient transportation service at the lowest cost consistent with the furnishings of such service, and thereby accomplish the purpose of the Interstate Commerce Act, as set forth in the national transportation policy declared by Congress, to develop and preserve a national transportation system adequate to meet the needs of the commerce of the United States, of the postal service, and of the national defense; the burden, thus cast upon interstate commerce is undue to the extent that the intrastate rates and charges are less than they would be on the basis herein prescribed; and these intrastate rates and charges cause and for the future will cause, undue, unreasonable, and unjust discrimination against interstate commerce. 4. The unlawfulness herein found to exist should be removed by applying to the West Virginia intrastate rates and charges the same respective increases as are maintained by the respondents on like interstate freight between points in West Virginia and points in adjoining States, as permitted in Ex Parte Nos. 262, 265, and 267. 5. The establishment of increases in intrastate rates and charges as required in finding 4 will not result in unreasonable rates or charges nor in rates or charges that are unreasonable in relation to interstate rates or charges, and will increase substantially the respondents' revenues. 6. The increased revenue to the respondents, which will result from the increased rates and charges as provided in finding 4, are required from intrastate traffic in West Virginia in order to enable the respondents to provide adequate and efficient railway transportation service. 7. This decision is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 8. The increases as required in finding 4 are shown to meet the criteria for increases established under current regulations promulgated by the Commission pursuant to the Wage and Price Stabilization Program. The foregoing ultimate findings and conclusions are without prejudice to the right of any interested party to apply for a modification thereof, regarding any specific intrastate rates, on the grounds that such rates or charges are not related to the interstate rates and charges on like freight in such a way as to contravene the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act. An order effectuating the foregoing findings and conclusions will be entered, unless this Commission is notified by the West Virginia Public Service Commission within 30 days from the date of service of this report, that it will permit the increases herein approved to take effect. By the Commission, Review Board Number 4 (Board Member BROWN not participating). (SEAL) ROBERT L. Oswald, |