In Louisiana Public Service Comm'n v. FCC (1986) 476 U.S. 355, the high court faced the contention that certain orders by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) relating to the depreciation of telephone plant and equipment preempted inconsistent state regulation. In the Communications Act of 1934, Congress granted regulatory authority to the FCC over " 'interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication,' , while expressly denying the FCC 'jurisdiction with respect to . . . intrastate communication service,' ," which was left to the states. ( Louisiana Public Service, at 476 U.S. p. 360.) The high court defined its task as "simply to determine where Congress has placed the responsibility for prescribing depreciation methods to be used by state commissions in setting rates for intrastate telephone service." ( Id. at p. 359.) Louisiana Public Service was, then, simply a statutory construction case, where Congress had created dual regulation of the telephone industry. The Communications Act of 1934 had no relevant express preemption clause or saving clause, and there was no dispute that if the FCC had jurisdiction to establish the relevant depreciation methods, the challenged state methods were in conflict and would have been preempted.