Fpc v. Union Electric Co., 381 U.S. 90 (1965)

Contents:
Author: U.S. Supreme Court

Show Summary

Fpc v. Union Electric Co., 381 U.S. 90 (1965)

Federal Power Commission v. Union Electric Co.


No. 123


Argued March 2, 1965
Decided May 3, 1965
381 U.S. 90

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Respondent filed a declaration of intention with the Federal Power Commission (FPC) pursuant to § 23(b) of the Federal Power Act to construct a pumped storage plant on a nonnavigable tributary of a navigable stream. A pumped storage plant uses power during periods of non-peak demands to pump water to an upper pool to be used to generate peak period energy by water falling into a lower pool. The FPC found that the nonnavigable tributary is a stream over which Congress has jurisdiction, as it is a headwater of a navigable river system. The FPC held that the project would require a license under § 23(b) because it would use water power for the interstate transmission of electricity and because it would affect downstream navigability. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the only relevant "commerce" under § 23(b) is that on the downstream navigable waterway, and that the project would have no significant impact on water commerce.

Held:

1. The commerce power of Congress clearly encompasses the interstate transmission of electric energy, and the project here is within the purview of that power, without regard to federal control of tributary streams and navigation. P. 94.

2. The language of the licensing requirement of § 23(b) invokes the full congressional authority over commerce, and not merely the regulation of navigation or water commerce. Pp. 95-98.

3. The purposes of the predecessor statute, the Federal Water Power Act, which included the comprehensive development of water power and hydroelectric energy, are more fully served by considering the impact of the project on the full range of commerce interests. Pp. 98-109.

4. Since the original Federal Water Power Act was concerned with the utilization of water resources, and particularly the power potential in water, there is no anomaly in the FPC’s position that steam plants generating energy for interstate transmission are not within the scope of § 23(b), although located on a stream over which Congress has jurisdiction, while similar hydroelectric facilities are covered by § 23(b). Pp. 109-110.

326 F.2d 535 reversed.

Contents:

Related Resources

None available for this document.

Download Options


Title: Fpc v. Union Electric Co., 381 U.S. 90 (1965)

Select an option:

*Note: A download may not start for up to 60 seconds.

Email Options


Title: Fpc v. Union Electric Co., 381 U.S. 90 (1965)

Select an option:

Email addres:

*Note: It may take up to 60 seconds for for the email to be generated.

Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Fpc v. Union Electric Co., 381 U.S. 90 (1965) in 381 U.S. 90 381 U.S. 91. Original Sources, accessed August 8, 2022, http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4WWEKA7ALEI7HTP.

MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Fpc v. Union Electric Co., 381 U.S. 90 (1965), in 381 U.S. 90, page 381 U.S. 91. Original Sources. 8 Aug. 2022. http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4WWEKA7ALEI7HTP.

Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Fpc v. Union Electric Co., 381 U.S. 90 (1965). cited in 1965, 381 U.S. 90, pp.381 U.S. 91. Original Sources, retrieved 8 August 2022, from http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4WWEKA7ALEI7HTP.