Summary

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia Arcadia, Ohio v. Ohio Power Company…

The attribution of such imprecision is readily avoided by placing the phrase "or any other subject matter" within the fourth enumeration clause, reading that to embrace " [4] the acquisition or disposition of any security, capital assets, facilities, or any other subject matter." It is inelegant, perhaps, to refer to "the acquisition or disposition of . . . [a] subject matter," but that inelegance must be preferred to a reading that introduces both redundancy and omission, and that renders the section's careful enumeration of subjects superfluous.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia Arcadia, Ohio v. Ohio Power Company…

Pursuant to § 206 of the FPA, FERC disallowed that portion of Ohio Power's coal costs that did not satisfy FERC's "comparable market" test. Under this test, utilities that purchase coal from affiliates may recover only the price that they would have incurred had they purchased coal under a comparable coal supply contract with a nonaffiliated supplier. In Ohio Power's case, FERC found that Ohio Power had paid approximately 50% more than that market price in 1980, approximately 94% more in 1981, and between 24% and 33% more during the period 1982 through 1986.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia Arcadia, Ohio v. Ohio Power Company…

But even if one accepts that FERC's rate order is a requirement qualifying under § 318, it is still a requirement with respect to a different subject matter from (and not, as § 318 requires, "with respect to the same subject matter" as) the acquisition of SOCCO. The combination of SEC requirements with respect to the acquisition of SOCCO and FERC requirements with respect to the disposition of electric power would not bring § 318 into play.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature