context: It cannot be disputed that this action by the Commission "fixed a legal relationship" between Delmarva and the municipalities. It is equally clear that the action of the Commission in reversing the AU on the discrimination issue "aggrieved" the municipalities within the meaning of SS 313(b). We therefore conclude that, had the municipalities petitioned in this court for review of Opinion 185-A within 60 days of its issuance, we would have had jurisdiction to review the opinion as a final order by the Commission.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: reviewing merits of Commission order establishing just and reasonable rates where wholesale customers of the utilities complained that the rates were based on an unfairly discriminatory demand allocation methodology
citation_a.sentence: See Papago Tribal Utility Authority, 628 F.2d at 239 (describing an order establishing just and reasonable rates as “[t]he quintessential reviewable order.”); see also Cities of Bethany, et al. v. FERC, 727 F.2d 1131 (D.C.Cir.1984) (reviewing merits of Commission order establishing just and reasonable rates where wholesale customers of the utilities complained that the rates were based on an unfairly discriminatory demand allocation methodology).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 628 F.2d 239, 239
citation_b.parenthetical: describing an order establishing just and reasonable rates as "[t]he quintessential reviewable order."
citation_b.sentence: See Papago Tribal Utility Authority, 628 F.2d at 239 (describing an order establishing just and reasonable rates as “[t]he quintessential reviewable order.”); see also Cities of Bethany, et al. v. FERC, 727 F.2d 1131 (D.C.Cir.1984) (reviewing merits of Commission order establishing just and reasonable rates where wholesale customers of the utilities complained that the rates were based on an unfairly discriminatory demand allocation methodology).