U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 46— PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY POLICIES

16 U.S.C. § 2601

Findings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar
The Congress finds that the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare, the preservation of national security, and the proper exercise of congressional authority under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce require—(1) a program providing for increased conservation of electric energy, increased efficiency in the use of facilities and resources by electric utilities, and equitable retail rates for electric consumers,(2) a program to improve the wholesale distribution of electric energy, the reliability of electric service, the procedures concerning consideration of wholesale rate applications before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the participation of the public in matters before the Commission, and to provide other measures with respect to the regulation of the wholesale sale of electric energy,(3) a program to provide for the expeditious development of hydroelectric potential at existing small dams to provide needed hydroelectric power,(4) a program for the conservation of natural gas while insuring that rates to natural gas consumers are equitable,(5) a program to encourage the development of crude oil transportation systems, and(6) the establishment of certain other authorities as provided in title VI of this Act.(Pub. L. 95–617, § 2, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3119.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This Act, referred to in par. (6), is Pub. L. 95–617, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3117, known as the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. Title VI of this Act enacted sections 824a–4 and 2645 of this title, section 918c of Title 7, Agriculture, and sections 717x to 717z of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, amended section 717f of Title 15 and sections 1311, 1312, and 1314 to 1316 of Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining, and enacted provisions set out as a note under section 2621 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note below and Tables.

Codification

This section was not enacted as part of title I of Pub. L. 95–617 which comprises this chapter.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 95–617, § 1, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3117, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter, and sections 823a, 824a–1 to 824a–4, 824i to 824k, 825q–1, and 2701 to 2708 of this title, section 918c of Title 7, Agriculture, sections 717x to 717z and 3201 to 3211 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, section 6808 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, and sections 2001 to 2012 of Title 43, Public Lands, amending sections 796, 824, 824a, 824d, and 825d of this title, section 717f of Title 15, sections 1311, 1312, and 1314 to 1316 of Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining, and sections 6801 to 6807 of Title 42, and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 824, 824a, 824d, 825d, and 2621 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742 (1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742 (1982). · cites it 4× “The difficulty with these arguments is that they disregard entirely the specific congressional finding, in § 2 of the Act, 16 U. S. C. § 2601 , that the regulated activities have an immediate effect on interstate commerce.”
New York v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 535 U.S. 1 (2002). · cites it 2× “3117 , 16 U. S. C. § 2601 et seq., to promote the development of new generating facilities and to conserve the use of fossil fuels.”
Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 603 P.2d 41 (Cal. 1979). · cites it 2× “" [9] For example, in a statute enacted after the decisions herein and applicable only to electric utility rate-making proceedings (Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.), Congress prescribed that any consumer "may intervene and participate as…”
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC v. Shumlin, 733 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “First, Congress 20 passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., 21 which sought “to promote the development of new generating facilities and to conserve the use 22 of fossil fuels.”
Winding Creek Solar LLC v. Carla Peterman, 932 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2019). “The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., requires electric utilities to buy all the power produced by alternative energy generators known as Qualifying Cogeneration Facilities (“QFs”).”
Mountain States Legal Found. v. Utah Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 636 P.2d 1047 (Utah 1981). · cites it 2× “3119 , 16 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. In addition, students of public utility regulation have argued for new approaches in cost allocations and rate structures generally.”
Idaho Power Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 639 P.2d 442 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 2× “On November 9, 1978, President Carter signed the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., hereinafter referred to as PURPA or the Act.”
Senior Citizens Coalition of Ne. Minnesota v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 355 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 3× “One commissioner dissented on the ground that the PUC had granted interve-nor compensation in the past “largely” based on provisions in the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (1983), and that it should continue to do so.”
Allied Chem. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 528 N.E.2d 153 (NY 1988). “The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) ( 16 USC § 2601 et seq.) and the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (see, 18 CFR 292.”
Zimmerman v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 218 P.3d 400 (Kan. 2009). “Issue 6: The district court did not err in dismissing Intervenors’ claim alleging preemption hy federal law.”
Sierra Club v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of West Virginia, 827 S.E.2d 224 (W. Va. 2019). “" 16 U.S.C. § 2601 [1978]. Congress also intended for PURPA to encourage the adoption of alternative energy sources, including small power production facilities 2 and cogeneration facilities.”
Gregory Swecker v. Midland Power Coop., 807 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “” 16 U.S.C. § 2601 (1). “Section 210 of PURPA’s Title II, 92 Stat.”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. FPL Grp., Inc., 38 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20245 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “) The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area has been so designated by the California Energy Commission, consistent with this federal legislation and with the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 ( 16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.). The California Legislature has promulgated a…”
Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Panda-Brandywine, L.P., 825 A.2d 462 (Md. 2003). “Panda is a “qualified facility” (QF) under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) ( 16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.). It has that status because it is a “qualifying cogeneration facility” that produces electricity and steam or other useful energy for industrial,…”
Stepanov v. Homer Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 814 P.2d 731 (Alaska 1991). “390(a) grants the PUC authority to award attorney’s fees in cases involving the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, 16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (1988).”
Brewer v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. Of Ill., 791 N.E.2d 657 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “2d at 542 , the appellees, the State of Mississippi and Mississippi Public Service Commission, won a declaratory judgment in federal district court that provisions of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) ( 16 U.S.C. §§ 2601 through 2645 (Supp.1980)) were…”
Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 682 P.2d 858 (Utah 1984). · cites it 2× “With that backdrop the PSC held a hearing in 1980 to consider the adoption of the advertising standards set forth in the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 2601 , et seq. Following the hearing, the PSC issued its Report and Order in which it…”
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Megan-Racine Assocs., Inc. (In Re Megan-Racine Assocs., Inc.), 189 B.R. 562 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1995). “The first provision re *568 quires Debtor to certify that its Facility is a Qualified Facility (“QF”) within the meaning of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and relevant New York State laws.”
Power v. Washington Water Power Co., 662 P.2d 374 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 2601 . The act sets out ratemaking and utility service standards designed to further the purposes of the act.”
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Lynch, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “See Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, PubL 95-617 § 2, Nov 9, 1978, 92 Stat 3117, codified at 16 USC § 2601 et seq and Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, PubL 95-620, Title I, § 102, Nov 9, 1978, 92 Stat 3291, PubL 100-42 § 1(c)(1), May 21, 1987, 101 Stat 310,…”
PPL Energyplus, LLC v. Nazarian, 974 F. Supp. 2d 790 (D. Maryland 2013). “” 16 U.S.C. § 2601 (2). However, the traditional vertically integrated utilities that owned transmission lines *800 were inhibiting the development of this wholesale electricity market by “deny[ing] alternative producers access to their transmission lines on competitive terms…”
Farmland Indus., Inc. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 943 P.2d 470 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “3117 (1978) (currently codified in 16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. [1995]), until February 3, 1997.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 433 A.2d 331 (Me. 1981). “” 16 U.S.C.A. § 2601 . As part of the program established by PURPA, Congress required state regulatory commissions to exercise discretion during rate-making proceedings on the question of implementing six enumerated standards designed to further the conservation of electric…”
Marjorie Linder Cooley v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 843 F.2d 1464 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “Cooley filed another complaint against Clifton charging that it had failed properly to qualify its facility under § 2 of the Public Utility Regula-tary Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C. § 2601 , and the Commission’s regulations thereunder.”
Pub. Serv. Co. v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n, 688 P.2d 1274 (Okla. 1984). “Coalition counters that the authority exists under federal law, specifically The Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (Act) ( 16 U.S.C. § 2601 , et seq., particularly sections 2631-33).”
Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 715 P.2d 19 (Kan. 1986). “” PURPA, 16 U.S.C. § 2601 (1982). KCP&L claims that the taking clause is violated because ño just compensation is received for the money taken, as the power received is neither needed nor wanted.”
Harrisburg Hosp. v. Thornburgh, 616 F. Supp. 699 (M.D. Penn. 1985). “2d 532 (1982), the Court rejected a Tenth Amendment objection to certain provisions of the Public Utility Regulations Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., because the legislation only required the states to consider, but not to enact, federal standards in rate making…”
Off. of Consum. Advocate v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 656 N.W.2d 101 (Iowa 2003). “The board ruled that Iowa’s AEP laws do not apply to Midland because the Federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C. § 2601 (1999), preempts the application of Iowa’s AEP law to utilities, such as RECs, that are otherwise exempt from rate regulation…”
People of the State of California Ex Rel. Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney Gen. of the State of California v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 315 (Fed. Cl. 2015). · cites it 2× “; Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties, RCFC 54(b); Jurisdiction; Law-of-the-Case Doctrine; Motion for Reconsideration, RCFC 59; Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.; Standing; Submitting Claims To Contracting Officer, 41 U.”
North Star Steel Co. v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 672 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 2× “3117 (codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 2601 , et seq.) (“PURPA”), was enacted to encourage the conservation of fossil fuels and promote the development of new generating facilities with “equitable rates.”
In Re Megan-Racine Assocs., Inc., 192 B.R. 321 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1995). “FACTS Congress enacted the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., (“PURPA”), for the purpose of encouraging the development of alternate energy sources.”
Pac. Power & Light Co. v. Duncan, 499 F. Supp. 672 (D. Or. 1980). “In fact, as the government points out, at the end of the passage quoted by plaintiffs, BPA states: The rate design will always consider such an embedded cost-of-service analysis but will also consider other factors, such as marginal or long-run incremental cost principles, the…”
Rosebud Enter., Inc. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 917 P.2d 781 (Idaho 1996). “3117 (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 2601 — 2645 (West 1995)). Rosebud proposes to develop a 40 megawatt (MW) electric generating facility near Mountain Home, Idaho, that will burn waste petroleum coke.”
Sekan Elec. Coop. Ass'n v. State Corp. Comm'n, 609 P.2d 188 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). “The Commission did make reference to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, 16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., a federal enactment concededly not applicable to Sekan.”
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Megan Racine Assocs., Inc. (In Re Megan-Racine Assocs., Inc.), 180 B.R. 375 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1995). “16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., Pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) and PURPA, public utilities are required to purchase electric energy from qualifying cogeneration facilities (“QF”).”
Kilroy v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty., 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3113 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). “2136-2141] [preemption of state power regulations by Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act ( 16 U.S.C. § 2601 ) not violative of the Tenth Amendment]; Transportation Union v.”
Piedmont Env't v. Virginia Elec., 684 S.E.2d 805 (Va. 2009). “With the passage in 1978 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act ("PURPA"), 16 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (2006 & Supp. I 2007), the federal government required utilities to allow the transmission of power from other generators across their transmission and distribution lines,…”
Apline Energy, LLC v. Matanuska Elec. Ass'n, 369 P.3d 245 (Alaska 2016). “We otherwise AFFIRM the decision of the superior court, ' WINFREE and MAASSEN, Justices, not partwlpatmg 1 .”
Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 804 F. Supp. 700 (E.D. Pa. 1992).
Application of Wind Power Pac. Investors-Iii, 686 P.2d 831 (Haw. 1984). “207, implementing section 201 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. § 2601 , et seq., are substantially identical to Administrative Rules, Title 6, Chapter 74, Subchapter 2.”
Rosebud Enter., Inc. v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 951 P.2d 521 (Idaho 1997). “THE BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS Rosebud is a developer of a small power production plant (the qualified facility) that is *4 classified as a “qualified facility” under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C. § 2601 through § 2645. Under PURPA…”
Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Clinton, 848 F. Supp. 1359 (N.D. Ill. 1994).
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 416 A.2d 1240 (Me. 1980).
In Re Revere Copper & Brass, Inc., 32 B.R. 577 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1983).
Appeal of Campaign for Ratepayers' Rights, 634 A.2d 1345 (N.H. 1993).
Monsanto Co. v. Dep't of Pub. Utils., 586 N.E.2d 982 (Mass. 1992).
Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 22 F.3d 1260 (3rd Cir. 1994).
North Star Steel Co. v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 720 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
Brewer v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Illinois, 339 Ill. App. 3d 1074 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
Am. Mun. Power-Ohio v. Env't Prot. Agency, 98 F.3d 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
Nassau Power Corp. v. Beard, 601 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1992).
Allied Chem. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 129 A.D.2d 233 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987).
Black Hills Power & Light Co. v. Weinberger, 808 F.2d 665 (8th Cir. 1987).
Sunflower Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 603 F.2d 791 (10th Cir. 1979).
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. New York State Bd. on Elec. Generation Siting & the Env't, 197 A.D.2d 97 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994).
CP Nat'l Corp v. Bonneville Power Admin., 928 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1991).
Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 675 F.2d 1226 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
McMahon v. New Castle Assocs., 687 F. Supp. 138 (D. Del. 1988).
F.W.E. Stapenhorst, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 554 N.E.2d 61 (NY 1990).
F.W.E. Stapenhorst, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 146 A.D.2d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989).
City of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 512 F. Supp. 1117 (W.D. Pa. 1981). · cites it 3×
DKRW Wind Holdings, LLC v. Transcanada Energy, Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op 6907 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017).
In re: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. (6th Cir. 2019).
Windham Solar, LLC v. Pub. Utils. Regulatory Auth., 196 Conn. App. 287 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020).
Allco Fin. Ltd. v. Anthony Roisman (2d Cir. 2023).
Franklin Energy Storage One, LLC v. Kjellander (D. Idaho 2020).
Winding Creek Solar v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. CA1/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
Allco Fin. Ltd. v. Roisman (2d Cir. 2026).
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2015).
People of the State of California Ex Rel. Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney Gen. of the State of California v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2015).
Long Lake Energy Corp. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 700 F. Supp. 186 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
Bd. of Pub. Utils. v. City of Kansas City, 496 F. Supp. 389 (D. Kan. 1980).
Untitled California Attorney Gen. Opinion (Cal. Att'y Gen. 1990).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.