Florida Power & Light Co. v. FEDERAL POWER COM'N
Decision Date | 13 July 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 24956.,24956. |
Citation | 430 F.2d 1377 |
Parties | FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Richard L. McGraw, Leon Jaworski, Houston, Tex., Harry A. Poth, Jr., New York City, Richard M. Merriman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
James L. Graham, Jr., Tallahassee, Fla. (now deceased), Prentice P. Pruitt, Tallahassee, Fla., for intervenor: (Florida Pub. Serv. Comm.)
Peter H. Schiff, Sol., F.P.C., Richard A. Solomon, Gen. Counsel, F.P.C., Israel Convisser, Atty., F.P.C., Washington, D.C., for respondent.
George Spiegel, Washington, D.C. (amicus curiae).
Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) petitions for review of a determination,1 reached by the Federal Power Commission on a 3-2 vote, that it is a public utility within the meaning of § 201 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S. C. § 824(e). We reverse the Commission and set aside its order.
The term "public utility" means "any person who owns or operates facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under sections 824-824h of this title." 16 U.S.C. § 824(e). 16 U.S.C. § 824(b).
The Commission asserts jurisdiction on the ground that FPL owns and operates facilities for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce. Jurisdiction over interstate wholesale sales under § 824(b) is not involved.
FPL's facilities are located wholly within the State of Florida. It has no connections at the state line with any out of state system. Commission jurisdiction is predicated on transmission interstate of FPL-generated power through its interconnection with other electric systems outside of and within Florida, and receipt by FPL, through these interconnections, of power generated outside of Florida.
Congress exercised its power under the Commerce Clause and undertook federal regulation in the interstate electric field as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in Public Utilities Commission of Rhode Island v. Attleboro Steam & Electric Co., 273 U.S. 83, 47 S. Ct. 294, 71 L.Ed. 549 (1927), holding that neither Massachusetts nor Rhode Island had power to regulate the sale by a Rhode Island utility of electric energy to a Massachusetts utility because the sale was in interstate commerce. There being at that time no federal regulation of interstate sales by electric utilities, Congress acted to close this gap in effective utility regulation, the "Attleboro gap," by enacting Part II of the Federal Power Act in 1935.
Jurisdiction of the FPC is not based upon a test of effect on interstate commerce but upon interstate transmission of electric energy (or wholesale sales in interstate commerce, not here applicable). 16 U.S.C. § 824(b). To make clear that Commission jurisdiction extends only to transmission or sales "in interstate commerce," the Congress wrote several specific exclusions into the Act.
16 U.S.C. § 824(b), extend Commission jurisdiction to the limits of but no further than the Attleboro gap. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. FPC, 324 U.S. 515, 65 S.Ct. 749, 89 L.Ed. 1150 (1945); Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. FPC, 319 U.S. 61, 63 S.Ct. 953, 87 L.Ed. 1258 (1943).
Likewise, the Commission shall not have jurisdiction, except as specifically provided * * * over facilities used for the generation of electric energy or over facilities used in local distribution or only for the transmission of electric energy in intrastate commerce, or over facilities for the transmission of electric energy consumed wholly by the transmitter.
16 U.S.C. § 824(b). Exemptions are also provided for governmental units and corporations, 16 U.S.C. § 824(f), for one engaged in transmission or sale of electric energy but not otherwise subject to the Act who makes a temporary emergency connection with a public utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, 16 U.S.C. § 824a(d), and for certain international exports, 16 U.S.C. § 824a(f).
Congress defined interstate transmission as follows:
Electric energy shall be held to be transmitted in interstate commerce if transmitted from a State and consumed at any point outside thereof.
16 U.S.C. § 824(c). The Supreme Court has credited the Congress with determining that "federal jurisdiction was to follow the flow of electric energy, an engineering and scientific, rather than a legalistic or governmental test." Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. FPC, supra.
Commission power does not extend over all connecting transmission facilities but only those which transmit energy actually moving in interstate commerce. Mere connection determines nothing.
Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. FPC, supra, 319 U.S. at 72, 63 S.Ct. at 959, 87 L.Ed. at 1269.
The concept of following the flow of electric energy from one state to the other was easy to apply in Attleboro. A Rhode Island electric company delivered energy over its Rhode Island transmission lines to the facilities of a Massachusetts electric company which had no generating capacity. Now generating companies are interconnected with each other nationwide. Companies have formed area and regional power pools, with varying degrees of integration and centralized management. The Commission itself has power to establish regional districts for voluntary interconnection and coordination of facilities and to promote such interconnection and coordination. 16 U.S.C. § 824a(a). Interconnection has become a fact of life to meet needs, scheduled and emergency, of localized areas and large regions.2
FPL produces and sells electric energy in eastern and southern Florida. But it is a major electric company.3
The Commission opinion describes FPL's interconnections:
The Commission position is best explained by quoting from its opinion:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte NewRiver, Inc.
... ... U.S. Mail, Federal Express, or United Parcel Service ... art at the time the invention was made, in light ... of the IFN document, to do ... ...
-
Federal Power Commission v. Florida Power Light Company 8212 38
...by expert opinion that is in accord with the known facts of electricity, and is sufficient to support its jurisdiction. Pp. 454—469. 430 F.2d 1377, reversed and Samuel Huntington, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Jefferson D. Giller, Houston, Tex., for respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE deliver......
-
Hertz Corporation v. Cox, 26251.
... ... Stearns and the driver then sued Hertz in federal court in Missouri for falsely representing that ... v. Georgia Power Co., 61 Ga.App. 402, 6 S.E.2d 159, 161 (1939); ... ...
-
Ex parte Gedeon
... ... on Electric Power Group (Reply Br. 12-14); (7) ... ...
-
Energy and Competition: The Saga of Electric Power
...376 U.S. 205, 52P.U.R. 3d 321, II L. Ed. 2d 638, 84 S. Ct. 644 (1964).24 FPC v. Florida Power and Light Company, 86 P.U.R. 3d 113,430 F.2d 1377 Energy and competition: 139reasonable wholesale rates to smaller firms such as cooperatives,municipals, and investor-owned companies.The Commission......