In the United States Supreme Court case of United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co., et al., 1961, the court was tasked with deciding whether or not a natural gas company could unilaterally change its rates under a contract that did not explicitly allow for such changes. The dispute arose when United Gas Pipe Line Company increased its rates without obtaining consent from Ideal Cement Company and other customers who had entered into long-term contracts for fixed-rate natural gas supplies. The Federal Power Commission allowed the rate increase, but this decision was challenged in court by Ideal Cement and others. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ideal Cement, stating that unless there is explicit language within a contract allowing unilateral changes to be made by one party, such alterations cannot occur legally. This ruling emphasized contractual stability and predictability over potential market fluctuations which might motivate companies like United Gas to alter their prices unilaterally.

In the dissenting opinion for United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co., it was argued that the Federal Power Commission (FPC) did not have jurisdiction over sales of natural gas to industrial consumers, as these were direct sales and not part of interstate commerce or transportation. The dissenting justices believed that Congress had only intended for FPC regulation in cases where there was a resale involved, such as when gas companies sold to local distributors who then resold to consumers. They contended that extending FPC authority into areas of direct sale would be an unwarranted expansion beyond what Congress had originally intended with the Natural Gas Act. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on state regulatory bodies and their ability to oversee local utility rates if federal jurisdiction were expanded in this way.