43 U.S.C. § 618

Promulgation of charges for electrical energy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 43 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to, and he shall, promulgate charges, or the basis of computation thereof, for electrical energy generated at Hoover Dam beginning June 1, 1937, computed to be sufficient, together with other net revenues from the project, to accomplish the following purposes:(a) To meet the cost of operation and maintenance, and to provide for replacements, of the project beginning June 1, 1937;(b) To repay to the Treasury, with interest, the advances to the Colorado River Dam Fund for the project made prior to June 1, 1937, within fifty years from that date (excluding advances allocated to flood control by section 617a(b) of this title, which shall be repayable as provided in section 618f of this title), and such advances made on and after June 1, 1937, over fifty-year periods;(c) To provide $600,000 for each of the years and for the purposes specified in section 618a(c) of this title;(d) To provide $500,000 for each of the years and for the purposes specified in section 618a(d) of this title; and(e) To provide, by application of the increments to rates specified in section 403(c)(2) of the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, as amended and supplemented [43 U.S.C. 1543(c)(2)], revenues, from and after June 1, 1987, for application to the purposes there specified.

Such charges may be made subject to revisions and adjustments at such times, to such extent, and in such manner, as by the terms of their promulgation the Secretary shall prescribe.

(July 19, 1940, ch. 643, § 1, 54 Stat. 774; Apr. 30, 1947, ch. 46, 61 Stat. 56; Pub. L. 98–381, title I, § 104(a)(1)–(3), Aug. 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 1334.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–381, § 104(a)(1), substituted “beginning June 1, 1937” for “during the period beginning June 1, 1937, and ending May 31, 1987” in provisions preceding subsec. (a).

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–381, § 104(a)(1), substituted “beginning June 1, 1937” for “during the period beginning June 1, 1937, and ending May 31, 1987”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–381, § 104(a)(2), substituted “and such advances made on or after June 1, 1937, over fifty-year periods” for “and such portion of such advances made on or after June 1, 1937, as (on the basis of repayment thereof within such fifty-year period or periods as the Secretary may determine) will be repayable prior to June 1, 1987”.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 98–381, § 104(a)(3), added subsec. (e).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Act Apr. 30, 1947, changed name of Boulder Dam back to Hoover Dam.

Construction With Other Laws

Pub. L. 98–381, title I, § 104(b), Aug. 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 1335, provided that: “Except as amended by this Act [amending sections 618, 618a, 618e, and 618k of this title], the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act of 1940 (54 Stat. 774, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 618), as amended and supplemented [this subchapter], shall remain in full force and effect.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1964–2005 · leading case: Fed. Power Comm'n v. S. California Edison Co., 376 U.S. 205 (1964).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fed. Power Comm'n v. S. California Edison Co., 376 U.S. 205 (1964). · cites it 2× “774 , 43 U. S. C. § 618 . Section 201 (f) of the Federal Power Act exempts the Secretary’s sale of energy from FPC jurisdiction but our concern in this case is not with the Secretary’s sales to Edison but with Edison’s resale to Colton.”

S. California Edison Co. v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 107 (Fed. Cl. 1999). · cites it 4× “774 (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 618 -618o), for the purpose, among others, of modifying the method for amortizing the Government’s investment in the project — now formally named the Hoover Dam.”

S. California Edison Co. v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 54 (Fed. Cl. 1997). · cites it 2× “774 (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 618 -618p (1994)). This Act authorized and directed the Secretary to promulgate charges, or the basis for computing them, for the sale of electrical energy to be generated at the Boulder Canyon Project Dam — formally named the Hoover Dam…”

S. California Edison Co. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “774 (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 618 -618p (1994)), enacted twelve years later, specified additional details surrounding the sale of energy produced at the Hoover Dam, such as the allocation of revenues collected from ener *1352 gy contracts.”

Badoni v. Higginson, 638 F.2d 172 (10th Cir. 1980). “; and the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act, 43 U.S.C. § 618 et seq.”

Arizona Power Auth. v. Morton, 549 F.2d 1231 (9th Cir. 1977). “774 (1940), as amended, 43 U.S.C. §§ 618 et seq. . Congress consented to the Upper Basin Compact.”

North Star Steel Co. v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 720 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “774 (codified at 43 U.S.C. §§ 618 -618p (2000)); United States v.”

North Star Steel Co. v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 672 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “774 (codified at 43 U.S.C. §§ 618 -618p (2000)); United States v.”

Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Higginson, 655 F.2d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “774 , 43 U.S.C. § 618 ; Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, Pub.”

Overton Power Dist. No. 5 v. Watkins, 829 F. Supp. 1523 (D. Nev. 1993). “Pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 618 , the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to promulgate charges for electricity produced at Hoover Dam.”

Overton Power Dist. No. 5 v. O'Leary, 73 F.3d 253 (9th Cir. 1996). “Overton/Valley further argue that because they were entitled to participate in the administrative proceedings they have standing to seek judicial review.”

S. California Edison Co. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “774 (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 618 -618p (1994)), enacted twelve years later, specified additional details surrounding the sale of energy produced at the Hoover Dam, such as the allocation of revenues collected from ener *1352 gy contracts.”

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.