U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 12— FEDERAL REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF POWER › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— REGULATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATER POWER AND RESOURCES

16 U.S.C. § 791

Repealed. Aug. 26, 1935, ch. 687, title II, § 212, 49 Stat. 847

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 71 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1931–2024 · leading case: Transmission Agency of N. California v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., Bonneville Power Admin., Pacificorp, & Portland Gen. Elec., 295 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Transmission Agency of N. California v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., Bonneville Power Admin., Pacificorp, & Portland Gen. Elec., 295 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “It also dismissed, as preempted under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791— 828c, TANC’s claims against the defendant utility companies.”
Pud No. 1 of Jefferson Cnty. v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994). · cites it 2× “III The Court's interpretation of § 401 significantly disrupts the careful balance between state and federal interests that Congress struck in the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U. S. C. § 791 et seq. Section 4(e) of the FPA authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission…”
First Iowa Hydro-Elec. Coop. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 328 U.S. 152 (1946). · cites it 2× “The controversy, as I understand it, is concerned with the proper administration of a law in which Congress has recognized the interests of the States as well as of the United States and has entrusted the proper adjustment of these nation-State relations to the interrelated…”
Am. Rivers v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 895 F.3d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “The Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. , charges the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with licensing the development, improvement, and operation of hydroelectric projects along navigable waterways.”
South Carolina Pub. Serv. Auth. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 762 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “This case involves challenges to the most recent reforms of electric transmission planning and cost allocation adopted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 791 a et seq. In Order No. 1000, as reaffirmed and clarified in Order…”
Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 545 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2008). “On November 25, 1991, PSE filed an apphcation with FERC for the rehcensing of its hydroelectric project pursuant to the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791 -828c. As required by the Clean Water Act, 33 U.”
Transmission Agency of N. California v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., Bonneville Power Admin., Pacificorp, & Portland Gen. Elec., 287 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “It also dismissed, as preempted under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791 -828c, TANC’s claims against the defendant utility companies.”
Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. City Power Mktg., LLC, 199 F. Supp. 3d 218 (D.D.C. 2016). “The Show Cause Order also required City Power to elect within 30 days one of two procedural paths offered by the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 791 et seq., for the imposition of penalties.”
Radford Iron Co. v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 62 F.2d 940 (4th Cir. 1933). · cites it 2× “Through a subsidiary corporation, the power company had previously filed with the Power Commission, pursuant tó section 23 of the Federal Water Power Act, 16 U. S. C. §§ 791 , 817 (16 USCA §§ 791, 817), a declaration of intention to construct and operate the water power…”
Lichoulas v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 606 F.3d 769 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “In 1986 FERC issued Lichoulas a license “to construct, operate and maintain the Appleton Trust Project” (Project) under Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 791 a et seq. James Lichoulas, Order Issuing License (Minor Project), 36 F.”
United States v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 107 F.2d 769 (4th Cir. 1939). · cites it 2× “While nearly all of the evidence related to the two issues above discussed, the major part of the legal argument in this case has revolved around the proper construction and application of the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, and as amended in 1935, 16 U.S.C.A. § 791 et seq. It…”
Metro Hydroelectric Co., LLC v. Metro Parks, 541 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2008). “§ 798 makes clear that the “sole purpose” of securing a preliminary permit is to maintain[] priority of application for a license under the terms of this Chapter [ 16 U.S.C. § 791 a et seq.] for such period or periods, not exceeding a total of three years, as in the discretion…”
Show all 71 citing cases →
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.