Alabama Power Co. v. McNinch
| Decision Date | 27 September 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 6691.,6691. |
| Citation | Alabama Power Co. v. McNinch, 94 F.2d 601, 68 App.D.C. 132 (D.C. Cir. 1937) |
| Parties | ALABAMA POWER CO. v. McNINCH et al., Federal Power Commission. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
H. C. Kilpatrick, of Washington, D. C., and Walter Bouldin, of Birmingham, Ala., for appellant.
Oswald Ryan and Dozier A. DeVane, both of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, GRONER, and STEPHENS, Associate Justices.
This is an appeal from a final decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia dismissing the bill of complaint of the appellant Alabama Power Company (hereafter referred to as Power Company) after a trial on the merits. The bill sought to enjoin the enforcement of an order of the Federal Power Commission (hereafter referred to as Commission) requiring the Power Company to establish accounts showing the actual legitimate original cost of a hydro-electric project owned by the Power Company to be the sum determined by the Commission as such cost, and requiring the Power Company to establish and maintain subsidiary accounts and records to substantiate all entries making up such total cost.
The record in the case discloses the following facts: The Power Company is an Alabama corporation engaged in business in that State as an electric public utility. One of its generating plants is Mitchell Dam, a hydro-electric project on the Coosa River, a navigable stream. The dam and power house were built under a license issued by the Commission on June 27, 1921. Physical construction of the project was begun on August 1, 1921, and completed on August 15, 1923. After completion of the project, the Power Company, as required by the Federal Power Act, filed a verified, detailed, initial cost statement. This showed a claimed initial cost of $10,646,056.76. Representatives of the Commission, after an audit, recommended disallowance of certain items. The Power Company protested, and a hearing on the disputed items was had before the Commission. Thereafter, in a written opinion, the Commission disallowed the following items, and ordered the Power Company to set up accounts showing the actual legitimate original cost as determined by the Commission:
1. Taxes paid on project lands prior to
July 1, 1918 ............................ $ 227.45
2. Dixie Construction Company fee ........... 183,540.15
3. Interest on funds expended prior to
1918 on the project2
4. Electric energy used during construction
........................................ 42,128.04
5. Fixed capital not classified by prescribed
accounts ............................... 3,500,000.00
The Power Company filed an application for a rehearing by the Commission and a petition for modification of the Commission's ruling. The application for rehearing was denied; certain modifications of the Commission's order, not here material, were made. Before the time fixed for compliance with the order of the Commission this suit was begun. After the hearing upon the merits the lower court made findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and upon them dismissed the bill. There was undisputed evidence that to establish accounts as ordered would cost approximately $5,000, and that the only substantial difference between such accounts and those now maintained by the Power Company would be in the amounts involved in this suit.
The Federal Power Act creates a power commission and empowers it to fix the cost of a project, as follows:
41 Stat. 1065, § 4, 41 Stat. 1353, 49 Stat. 839, § 202, 16 U.S.C.A. § 797, Supp.1936
"Net investment" and "cost" are defined in the Act as follows:
41 Stat. 1063, § 3, 49 Stat. 838, § 201, 16 U.S. C.A. § 796(13), Supp. 1936
Under Section 797 of Title 16, U.S.Code the Commission has power to issue preliminary permits for the purpose of enabling applicants for a license to secure necessary preliminary data and to comply with applicable state laws. Under Section 798 the preliminary permit is for the sole purpose of maintaining priority of application for a license, for such period not exceeding three years as in the discretion of the Commission may be necessary for making examinations, surveys, estimates, and the like.
Under Section 799 the duration of a license may not exceed fifty years, and each license is conditioned upon acceptance by the licensee of all the terms and conditions of the Federal Power Act.
Section 803 provides:
"All licenses issued under Sections 791 to 823 of this title shall be on the following conditions:
* * *
"Annual charges payable by licensees (e) That the licensee shall pay to the United States reasonable annual charges in an amount to be fixed by the Commission for the purpose of reimbursing the United States for the costs of the administration of this chapter; . . . and for the expropriation to the Government of excessive profits until the respective States shall make provision for preventing excessive profits or for the expropriation thereof to themselves, or until the period of amortization as herein provided is reached, and in fixing such charges the Commission shall seek to avoid increasing the price to the consumers of power by such charges, and any such charges may be adjusted from time to time by the Commission as conditions may require: . . ." 41 Stat. 1068, § 10(d, e), 49 Stat. 842, § 206, 16 U.S.C.A. § 803(d, e), Supp.1936 and Section 807 provides:
41 Stat. 1071, § 14, 49 Stat. 844, § 207, 16 U.S.C.A. § 807, Supp.19363
Under these provisions it is clear that the Commission has authority to determine the actual legitimate original cost of a project and to require the licensee to set up his books showing the cost as thus determined. Cf. Clarion River Power Co. v. Smith, 61 App.D.C. 186, 59 F.2d 861, 1932, certiorari denied 287 U.S. 639, 53 S.Ct. 88, 77 L.Ed. 553,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Utah Power & Light Co. v. Public Service Commission
... ... picture of a holding company (Electric Bond & Share) which ... owns both the construction corporation and the operating ... utility. Alabama Power Co. v. Federal Power ... Commission , 5 Cir., 134 F.2d 602 ... It was ... admitted on behalf of the Company by counsel that the ... 1086. To the same effect see ... Alabama Power Co. v. Federal Power ... Commission , 5 Cir., 134 F.2d 602; Alabama Power ... Co. v. McNinch , 68 App. D.C. 132, 94 F.2d 601; ... Colorado Interstate Gas Company v. Federal Power ... Commission , 10 Cor., 1944, 142 F.2d 943 ... ...
-
First Iowacooperative v. Federal Power Commission State of Iowa
...River Power Co. v. Smith, 61 App.D.C. 186, 59 F.2d 861, certiorari denied 287 U.S. 639, 53 S.Ct. 88, 77 L.D. 553; Alabama Power Co. v. McNinch, 68 App.D.C. 132, 94 F.2d 601; Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 74 App.D.C. 351, 123 F.2d 155, certiorari denied 315 U.S.......
-
Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Federal Power Com'n
...companies were not entitled to interest after the construction period ended and they began to receive earnings. Alabama Power Co. v. McNinch, 68 App.D.C. 132, 94 F.2d 601. Elaboration is unnecessary concerning the disallowance of interest on the amount which Canadian paid Amarillo Oil Compa......
-
Quinn v. Butz, 72--1396
...(1944); Joseph A. Kaplan & Sons, Inc. v. FTC, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 3 n. 4, 347 F.2d 785, 787 n. 4 (1965); Alabama Power Co. v. McNinch, 68 App.D.C. 132, 149, 94 F.2d 601, 618 (1937), or evasion of personal liability, Anderson v. Abbott, supra, 321 U.S. at 362--363, 64 S.Ct. 531; Francis O. D......