U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 12— FEDERAL REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF POWER › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— LICENSEES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES; PROCEDURAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

16 U.S.C. § 825m

Enforcement provisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Enjoining and restraining violations

Whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person is engaged or about to engage in any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of the provisions of this chapter, or of any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, it may in its discretion bring an action in the proper District Court of the United States or the United States courts of any Territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to enjoin such acts or practices and to enforce compliance with this chapter or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, and upon a proper showing a permanent or temporary injunction or decree or restraining order shall be granted without bond. The Commission may transmit such evidence as may be available concerning such acts or practices to the Attorney General, who, in his discretion, may institute the necessary criminal proceedings under this chapter.

(b) Writs of mandamus

Upon application of the Commission the district courts of the United States and the United States courts of any Territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus commanding any person to comply with the provisions of this chapter or any rule, regulation, or order of the Commission thereunder.

(c) Employment of attorneys

The Commission may employ such attorneys as it finds necessary for proper legal aid and service of the Commission or its members in the conduct of their work, or for proper representation of the public interests in investigations made by it or cases or proceedings pending before it, whether at the Commission’s own instance or upon complaint, or to appear for or represent the Commission in any case in court; and the expenses of such employment shall be paid out of the appropriation for the Commission.

(d) Prohibitions on violatorsIn any proceedings under subsection (a), the court may prohibit, conditionally or unconditionally, and permanently or for such period of time as the court determines, any individual who is engaged or has engaged in practices constituting a violation of section 824u of this title (and related rules and regulations) from—(1) acting as an officer or director of an electric utility; or(2) engaging in the business of purchasing or selling—(A) electric energy; or(B) transmission services subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.(June 10, 1920, ch. 285, pt. III, § 314, as added Aug. 26, 1935, ch. 687, title II, § 213, 49 Stat. 861; amended June 25, 1936, ch. 804, 49 Stat. 1921; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 32(b), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 127, 63 Stat. 107; Pub. L. 109–58, title XII, § 1288, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 982.)Editorial NotesCodification

As originally enacted subsecs. (a) and (b) contained references to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Act June 25, 1936, substituted “the district court of the United States for the District of Columbia” for “the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia”, and act June 25, 1948, as amended by act May 24, 1949, substituted “United States District Court for the District of Columbia” for “district court of the United States for the District of Columbia”. However, the words “United States District Court for the District of Columbia” have been deleted entirely as superfluous in view of section 132(a) of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, which states that “There shall be in each judicial district a district court which shall be a court of record known as the United States District Court for the district”, and section 88 of Title 28 which states that “the District of Columbia constitutes one judicial district”.

Amendments

2005—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 109–58 added subsec. (d).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1938–2025 · leading case: City of Gainesville v. Florida Power & Light Co., 488 F. Supp. 1258 (S.D. Fla. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Gainesville v. Florida Power & Light Co., 488 F. Supp. 1258 (S.D. Fla. 1980). · cites it 5× “The Cities argue that the reference to “suits in equity and actions at law” is meaningless if it does not imply private enforcement actions since other provisions in the Act “fully authorize the Commission to seek injunctive relief in federal district court against violations of…”
Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974). · cites it 2× “That section reads: "When an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review.”
Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 854 F.3d 692 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “1995) (observing that subsection (h) relies on the Federal Power Act’s enforcement provisions, citing FPA §§ 314 & 317, 16 U.S.C. §§ 825m & 825p). As explained above (swpra at pp.”
Coalition for Competitive Elec. v. Zibelman, 272 F. Supp. 3d 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 825m(a). The FPA also requires every public utility to file with FERC rates'for all sales Subject to FERC’s jurisdiction and empowers FERC to hold hearings to examine new or changed rates, to suspend rates, and to determine rates.”
Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. v. Consol. Gas, 184 F.2d 552 (4th Cir. 1950). · cites it 2× “Section 314, 16 U.S.C.A. § 825m, of the Act empowers the Commission to bring an action in the United States District Court to enjoin violations of the statute and to enforce compliance therewith, and further provides that the Commission may transmit evidence of illegal practices…”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Martin Frank, 388 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1968). “§ 2280 ; Federal Power Commission Act, 16 U.S.C. § 825m(a); cf. FPC v. Arizona Edison Co.”
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 379 F.2d 153 (D.C. Cir. 1967). “825f (1964), for willful failure to testify or produce documents; Section 314(a), 16 U.S.C. § 825m (1964), for willful violation of the Act, rules, regulations, or orders; Section 315(a), 16 U.”
Bluestone Energy Design, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 74 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “The Federal Power Act nowhere authorizes the Commission to recover expenses on behalf of the United States through penalties; rather, the Act specifically states that expenses for employing attorneys to enforce the Act “shall be paid out of the appropriation for the Commission.”
Carolina Aluminum Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 97 F.2d 435 (4th Cir. 1938). · cites it 2× “314, 16 U.S.C.A. § 825m. Adverting to a similar situation in the Shannahan Case, the Court said: “The determination, whether applied for by the Board, by a carrier, or by employees, is clearly not an order enforceable within the meaning of the cases construing and applying the…”
Indus. Cogenerators v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 47 F.3d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “§§ 824a-3(h)(l), (2)(A) (for purpose of enforcement, rule implementing PURPA “shall be treated as a rule under the [FPA]”); 16 U.S.C. § 825m(a) (FERC action to enforce FPA lies in district court); 16 U.”
Wolverine Power Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 963 F.2d 446 (D.C. Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “” 16 U.S.C. § 825m(a) (emphasis added). In the same section, Congress also empowered FERC to seek “writs of mandamus commanding any person to comply with the provisions of this chapter or any rule, regulation, or order of the Commission thereunder.”
United States v. FMC Corp., 717 F.2d 775 (3d Cir. 1983). “§§ 77t(b), 78u(d), 79r(g), 79y, 80a-35, 80a-41(e), 80a-43 (1976) (authorizing Securities and Exchange Commission to sue to enjoin compliance with a variety of laws within the Commission’s jurisdiction); 33 U.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
16 U.S.C. § 825m(a): 15 cases
City of Gainesville v. Florida Power & Light Co., 488 F. Supp. 1258 (S.D. Fla. 1980). “The Cities argue that the reference to “suits in equity and actions at law” is meaningless if it does not imply private enforcement actions since other provisions in the Act “fully authorize the Commission to seek injunctive relief in federal district court against violations of…”
Coalition for Competitive Elec. v. Zibelman, 272 F. Supp. 3d 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “16 U.S.C. § 825m(a). The FPA also requires every public utility to file with FERC rates'for all sales Subject to FERC’s jurisdiction and empowers FERC to hold hearings to examine new or changed rates, to suspend rates, and to determine rates.”
Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 854 F.3d 692 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “1995) (observing that subsection (h) relies on the Federal Power Act’s enforcement provisions, citing FPA §§ 314 & 317, 16 U.S.C. §§ 825m & 825p). As explained above (swpra at pp.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Martin Frank, 388 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1968). “§ 2280 ; Federal Power Commission Act, 16 U.S.C. § 825m(a); cf. FPC v. Arizona Edison Co.”
Indus. Cogenerators v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 47 F.3d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “§§ 824a-3(h)(l), (2)(A) (for purpose of enforcement, rule implementing PURPA “shall be treated as a rule under the [FPA]”); 16 U.S.C. § 825m(a) (FERC action to enforce FPA lies in district court); 16 U.”
16 U.S.C. § 825m(b): 2 cases
City of Gainesville v. Florida Power & Light Co., 488 F. Supp. 1258 (S.D. Fla. 1980). “The Cities argue that the reference to “suits in equity and actions at law” is meaningless if it does not imply private enforcement actions since other provisions in the Act “fully authorize the Commission to seek injunctive relief in federal district court against violations of…”
Wolverine Power Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 963 F.2d 446 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “” 16 U.S.C. § 825m(a) (emphasis added). In the same section, Congress also empowered FERC to seek “writs of mandamus commanding any person to comply with the provisions of this chapter or any rule, regulation, or order of the Commission thereunder.”
16 U.S.C. § 825m(c): 3 cases
Bluestone Energy Design, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 74 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “The Federal Power Act nowhere authorizes the Commission to recover expenses on behalf of the United States through penalties; rather, the Act specifically states that expenses for employing attorneys to enforce the Act “shall be paid out of the appropriation for the Commission.”
Greene Cnty. Plan. Bd. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 559 F.2d 1227 (2d Cir. 1976).
Litigating Auth. of the Off. of Fed. Inspector, Alaska Nat. Gas Transp. Sys. (OLC 1980).
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.