4

In 8/4

EXEMPT ION OF SMALL HYDROELECT

POW ER PROJECT S GOVERNMENT

IC <

Storage

H E A R I N G

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INT ERSTA TE ANI) FOR EIGN COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIV ES

EIGH TY -SE VE NT II CONG RESS

SE CO ND SE SS IO N

ON

H.R. 6951

A B IL L TO A UTHO RIZ E TH E FED ER A L PO W ER CO MMISSION 

TO EX EM PT SM AL L HYDROELE CTRIC PR O JE C T S FR OM CER ­

TAIN OF T H E LIC EN SIN G PROV IS IO NS OF TH E FED ER A L 

PO W ER ACT

S. 1606

AN AC T TO A UTHORIZ E TH E FED ER A L PO W ER CO MMISSION 

TO EX EM PT SM AL L H YD RO ELECTRIC PR O JE C TS FR OM CER ­

TAIN OF TH E LIC EN SIN G PR OV IS IO NS OF T H E FE D E R A L 

PO W ER ACT

85976

JU N E 14, 1962

P ri n te d for th e u se of th e 

Com m itt ee on In te rs ta te an d Fore ig n Co mm erc e

U.S. GOVERNM ENT PR IN TING OF FICE 

WASHINGT ON : 1962
*1 • •

I

• a M

 •• i

CO M M IT TE E ON IN TE RST ATE AN D FO RE IG N CO MMER CE

O REN HAR RIS , Arkansas, Chairma n

JOHN B. B E N N E T T , Michig an 

W IL LI AM L. SPR IN G ER , Illinois 

PA U L F. SCH E N CK , Ohio 

J. AR T H U R YO U N G ER , California 

H AR OLD R. CO LLIE R , Illinois 

M IL TO N W. G LEN N , New Jersey 

SAM U EL L. D EV IN E, Ohio 

A N CII E R N ELSEN , Minnesota 

H AS TI NGS K E IT II , Massachusetts 

W IL LA R D 8. CU R TIN , Pennsylvania 

A B N E R W. SI BAL , Connecticut 

VERN ON W. TH OM SO N, Wisconsin 

P E T E R II. D O M IN IC K , Colorado

JOH N B E L L W IL LI AM S, Mississippi 

P E T E R F. M A C K , Jr., Illinois 

K E N N E TH A. RO BERTS, Alab ama 

M ORGAN M. M OU LD ER , Missouri 

H A R L E Y O. ST AGGERS, West Virginia 

W A L TE R RO GE RS , Texas 

SA M U E L N. FR IE D E L, Maryland 

T O R B E R T II. M ACD O N ALD , Massachusetts 

G EO R G E M. RH OD ES , Penn sylvania 

JOHN JA RM AN , Oklahoma 

LE O W. O’ BRIE N , New Yor k 

JO HN E. MO SS , California 

JO HN D. D IN G E LL, Michigan 

JO E M . K IL G O R E, Texas 

P A U L G. RO GER S, Florida 

R O B E R T W. H EM PH IL L, South Carolina 

DAN R O ST EN KO W SK I, Illinois 

JA M ES C. H E A L E Y , New York 

H O RACE R. K O R N E O A Y , North Carolina

W. E. Williamson, Cle rk

Kenn eth J. Paint er , A ss is ta nt Clerk

Pr ofessio na l S ta ff

A nd re w Stev ens on Sam G. Spal

K urt B orcha rdt M art in W. C unningham

S u b c o m m it te e on C o m m u n ic a tio n s and P o w e r

M O R G AN M . M O U LD E R , Missouri, Chairm an

W A L T E R RO GER S, Texas

JOHN E. MOS S, California

DAN RO ST EN KO W SK I, Illinois 

H O RACE R. K O R N E O A Y, North Carolina

J. AR TH U R YO U N G E R , California 

A B N E R W. SI BAL , Connecticut 

VER N O N W. TH OM SO N, Wisconsin

-t CxK’ jr ,

f.'I.i j.-

£)5’;o:; ;ru ;*) xr.J ..

.n iT I
C O N T E N T S

Pa<«

Tex t of H .R. 6951_________________ ____ _________________________ 1

Repor t of the Bureau of the Budg et__________________________________ 1

Sta tem ent of Hon. Joseph C. Swidler, Chairman, Federal Power Commission_______________________________________________________ 2

Additional information sub mitted for the record by—

Federal Power Commission:

Opinion and order (Public Service Co. of New Ham pshire), April

25, 1962______________________________ 4

Press release No. 11,988___________________________________ 16

New England Council for Economic Development, letter from Gardner

A. Caverly___________________________________________________ 16

Shannon, W. T., telegram from ____________________________________ 15

rri

EXE MPTIO N OF SMALL HYDRO ELE CTR IC POW ER

PROJE CTS

TH U R SD A Y , JU N E 14, 19 62

H o use of R e p r e se n t a t iv e s,

S ubcom m it tee on C om munic ati ons

an d P ow er of t h e C om m it te e on

I n terst a te an d F o r eig n C om m er ce,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 1333, 

New House Office Building, Hon. Walter Rogers of Texas presiding.

Mr. R og er s of Texas. The Subcommittee on Communications and 

Power will come to order for the consideration of pending business.

The bills under consideration this morning are H.R. 6951 and S. 

1606. These are identical bills amending section 10 of the Federal 

Power Act to increase from 100 to 2,000 horsepower the size of small 

hydroelectric projects which may be exempted from certain of the 

licensing provisions of the act. The amendm ent proposed in these 

bills is sponsored by the Federal Power Commission and has been 

before Congress in some form or other during the past 15 years.

Without objection the bill H.R. 6951 will be considered and will be 

printed in the record at this point, the proper reference being made to 

S. 1606.

(H.R. 6951 follows:)

[II.R. 6951, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BI LL To authoriz e the Federal Power Commission to exempt small hydroelectric projects from certain 

of the licensing provisions of the Federal Power Act

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, Th at subsections (b), (e), and (i) of section 10 of 

the Federal Power Act, as a mended (16 U.S.C. 803(b), 803(e), 803(i)), is amended 

by strik ing out the words “one hundred horsepower” in each such subsection 

and inserting in lieu thereof the words “two thousand horsepower”.

Mr. R oger s of Texas. The Bureau of the Budget report will be 

included immediately following the legislation in the record.

(The Bureau of the Budget report is as follows:)

E x e c u t iv e O f fic e o f t h e P r e s id e n t,

B u r ea u o f t h e B u d g e t, 

Washington, D.C., June 13, 1962.

Hon. O r en H a r r is ,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

D ea r M r. C h a ir m a n : This is in response to your requ est of May 15, 1961, 

for the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H. R. 6951, a bill to authorize the 

Federal Power Commission to exempt small hydroelectric projects from certain 

of th e licensing provisions of th e Federal Power Act.

The Federal Power Commission now has discretionary au tho rity to waive 

certain conditions, provisions, and requ irem ents of the Federal Power Act for 

1
2 EXE MPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTR IC POWER PROJECTS

hydroelectric projects of less than 100 horsepower installed capacity . This bill 

would amend the act to give the Commission such autho rity for projects of less 

than 2,000 horsepower.

Enactment of the bill would reduce the burden of regulatory action on minor 

projects t hat are often of no consequence for some of the purposes of th e Federal 

Power Act. Consequently, the Bureau of th e Budget would favor ena ctm ent of 

this legislation.

Sincerely yours,

Phill ip S. Hughes,

Ass istant Director fo r Legislative Reference.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Our first witness this morning is Hon. Joseph 

C. Swidler, Chairman of the Federal Power Commission.

Mr. Swidler, we are happy to have you before us this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH C. SWIDLER, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL 

POWER COMMISSION

Mr. Swidler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief statement I would like to read and then I will answer any questions.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. You may proceed, Mr. Swidler.

Mr. Swidler. As this committee is well aware, the Commission’s 

oldest function is that of licensing hydroelectric developments on the 

waters of the United States over which Congress has jurisdiction. 

The projects licensed vary in size from just a few horsepower to over 

2 million. The original Federal W ater Power Act in 1920 recognized 

that all of the requirements for licensing a large hydroelectric project 

were not necessary for small projects. The dividing line between a 

major and a minor project was drawn at 100 horsepower in 1920. 

The Commission was given auth ority in section 10(i) of the act to 

waive all of the licensing requirements for projects of not more than 

100 horsepower except the 50-year license period and annual charges 

for the use of Indian tribal lands. Section 10(b) of the act permits 

the Commission also to waive approval of plans for changes in a 

project of not more than 100 horsepower and section 10(e) permits 

waiver of the annual charges for such projects except those on Indian 

tribal lands.

The bill which is the subject of this hearing would simply change 

the dividing line between a major project and a minor project from 

100 horsepower to 2,000 horsepower.

The need for this legislation is clear. The dividing line of 100 

horsepower made sense in 1920 when plants of that size were a p art of 

many utility systems. However, today, when power companies are 

adding individual units as large as 1 million kilowatts of capacity to 

their systems, plants of 2,000 horsepower (1,500 kilowatts) or less are 

not an important part of any power system and thus have a negligible 

impact on the cost of power to consumers. In fact, many plants of 

1,500 kilowatts or less are being retired from service because increased 

operating costs are making them uneconomical to operate.

The amendment we propose toda y would permit the Commission 

to waive the licensing requirements which are only necessary for 

projects that have a real bearing on the cost of electricity to consumers. The amendment would permit us to waive the detailed 

requirements relating to the determination of the original cost of the 

project, the annual charges, the establishment of amortization reserves 

and depreciation reserves, and other accounting matters which are 

unnecessary for these small plants, which are expensive for the
EXEMPT ION OF SMALL HYDROELECTR IC POWER PROJECTS 3

licensees to comply with, and expensive for the Commission to administer. It is only necessary for the Commission to have sufficient 

information to insure the safety of these small structures and to make 

sure tha t they are compatible with the comprehensive development of 

the resources of the stream in which they exist, including, I might say, 

Mr. Chairman, the fishery resources of the stream.

The amendment will permit us to obtain the information we need 

to perform these essential functions bu t will eliminate the necessity 

of obtaining elaborate information which is not needed for these 

small projects.

As of the first of 1962 there were 68 plants between 100 horsepower 

and 2,000 horsepower which are under Commission license and would 

therefore be affected by this amendment. However, an additional 

700 plants of comparable size are still unlicensed. The Commission 

is engaged in a vigorous program of bringing existing unlicensed 

projects, large and small, under the licensing provisions of the Federal 

Power Act. This amendm ent will permit the Commission to concentrate on the major projects where regulation will be meaningful 

to utility consumers and not be distracted by the necessity of requiring elaborate data from minor projects of less than 1,500 kilowatts.

Our staff estimates that a minor license requires only 20 percent of 

the man-hours required for processing an uncontested major project 

application. Similar savings, of course, result to the applicant because the data they are required to supply are only a fraction of tha t 

required for a major project.

The Commission has recommended this legislation since 1954 and 

it has now passed the Senate. The amendm ent will be beneficial to 

the Commission and to the owners of small projects and will in no way 

sacrifice the Commission’s control over these projects in the public 

interest. The Commission therefore strongly recommends its enactment.

A predecessor bill, S. 2263 in the 86th Congress, was the subject of 

hearings in the Senate. The bill at that time was uncontested and 

at the hearings, in addition to endorsements by the Government 

agencies, it was endorsed by the National Association of Railroad 

and Utility Commissioners, and by the Northwest Public Power Association.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Does tha t conclude your statement?

Mr. Swidler. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Mr. Moss, do you have any statements?

Mr. Moss. Not a t the moment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Mr. Sibal?

Mr. Sibal. No, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Mr. Thomson?

Mr. Thomson. No, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. With regard to your statem ent about 700 

plants of comparable size that are still unlicensed, to get my own mind 

clear on that, why are they unlicensed?

Mr. Swidler. They are unlicensed for several reasons. One of 

them is that for a long time there was uncertainty as to whether they 

were required to have a license because these projects were either on 

navigable streams or streams which affected navigation. There was 

uncertainty as to the facts, which were n ot clear in each situation. 

There was also uncertainty as to the standards tha t were used in
4 EXEMPT ION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS

determining navigability. It wasn’t until 1943, for example, that the 

Commission ruled tha t a history of logging on a stream was a basis 

for determining navigability.

Not until just this year did the Commission formulate a standard 

as to how these projects, many or perhaps most of which were constructed before 1935 when license requirements became mandatory, 

should be treated for licensing purposes.

Another difficulty, frankly, Mr. Chairman, is the complexity of the 

applications which are required. A lot of these projects are owned 

either by very small power companies, or in many cases by resort 

owners, industries, and owners of one kind or another which have 

trouble grappling either with legal problems or with the requirements 

for filling out application forms.

The Commission, since deciding how these unlicensed projects 

should be treated for licensing purposes in the Androscoggin decision, 

issued April 25, 1962, is initiating a program to bring all unlicensed 

projects for which licenses are required within the act. It would 

facilitate our efforts to straighten out this anomalous situation where 

there are 700 projects in effect operating in violation of the law. If 

we could have this amendment it would make it much more feasible 

to ask these people to come in and make it possible for them to come 

in without a great deal of expense, frequently disproportionate to the 

importance of the transaction.

With your consent, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have put into 

the record the Commission’s recent opinion anti order in the Androscoggin licensing case in which the standards which we would apply 

as to terms of license arc set forth, and the history of licensing problems is also described.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Does that opinion, Mr. Swidler, have to do 

with the question of navigability too?

Mr. Swidler. It has to do with the question of the standards of 

determining navigability, yes, sir.

(The information mentioned follows herewith:)

U n it ed Sta tes of A m er ic a

F ed er a l P o w er C om m is si on

Beiore Commissioners: Joseph C. Swidler, Chairman; Howard Morgan, L. J. 

O’Connor, Jr., Charles R. Ross, and Harold C. Woodward 

Pw&Ztc Service Company of N ew Ham pshire. Project No. 2288

O p in io n N o. 357

Op in io n an d O r d e r I ssu in g L ic e n s e (M a jo r)

(Issued April 25, 1962)

Ross: Commissioner.

On December 27, 1960, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Applicant) filed application for a license under Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act 

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for its constructed Project No. 2288, known 

as the Gorham Project, located on the Androscoggin River in the town of Gorham, 

Coos County, New Hampshire. The application recites that the first generating 

plant and original dam at the Gorham site were constructed in 1894. The dam 

was rebuilt in 1903, 1927, and 1928. Two 400-kw generatin g units were installed 

in 1917 and the turbines replaced in 1937. Two 675-kw generating units were 

installed in 1923. The three sections of the powerhouse were constructed in 1909, 

1917, and 1923, respectively, and have remained substan tially unchanged since 

1923. These early insta llatio ns and changes were made by predecessors of Applicant, which acquired the facilities on December 12, 1943. In 1958 and 1959,
EXE MPT ION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT S 5

Applican t removed the old timb er-cribbed dam and built a new one, also timbercribbed.

In its order issued J uly 24, 1958,1 the Commission found th at the Androscoggin 

River throug hou t its entire length is a “navigable water” as defined in Section 

3(8) of the Federal Power Act and a “navigable water of the United Sta tes” 

within the meaning of Section 23(b) of the Act. The basis for this finding was 

that the Androscoggin is presently, and for more tha n a century has been, used 

for the transp ortation of logs and other forest prod ucts by water.

This application raises again a question which has perplexed the Commission 

for many years, i.e., the app ropriate license term to be accorded a project constructed ’prior to the 1935 amendments to the A ct2

 and operated thereafter in 

navigable waters withou t requisite federal authorization. The resolution of this 

question calls for the exercise of sound discretion, for while Section 6 of the Act 

fixes a 50-year ceiling on license terms, it evidently contemp lates th at the Commission may prescribe a shorter period if circum stanc es so warrant. After evaluatin g all rele van t factors, we propose to issue Applicant a license effective as of 

.July 1, 1958, and terminating December 31, 1993. Since the reasons which lead 

us to prescribe the above license term will also guide the action we shall take 

upon pending and future applications involving other pre-1935 projects, it is 

im porta nt th at those reasons be fully explained.

Section 23(b) of the Act declares it unlawful to construct, operate or maintain 

hydroelectric works in navigable waters of the United States exce pt under an 

FPC license or app ropriate pre-1920 federal perm it. This provision, one of 

several amendm ents enacted as part of the Public Utilities Act of 1935,3 was 

intended as a concise res tatem ent of a proh ibition deemed by the draftsm en to 

be embodied already in Section 9 of the River and Harbo r Act of 1899, when 

read toge ther w ith Section 4(d) of the Federal Wa ter Power Act of 1920.4 While 

the relationship between the 1899 and 1920 s tatutes was not explicitly defined in 

eith er act, any uncertainty there mig ht have been as to the legal sta tus of an 

unlicensed power project occupying a navigable stre am vanished with the adoption 

of Section 23(b) in 1935. From th at point on, if n ot earlier, a license from this 

Commission was clearly manda tory . Unfortunate ly, the Commission has lacked 

sufficient fund s or m an power to enforce general compliance with the s tat ute , and 

as a result a large num ber of projects, including the one involved in this application, have continued to operate witho ut licenses. If a company whose project 

has enjoyed three or more decades of unregulated operation were gra nted a full 

50-year license term from date of issuance, it would reap a sub stantial windfall 

from its prolonged delay in filing. Equ ally important, it would obtain an unmerited adv antage over those companies which complied at an earlier date, 

inasmuch as projects of the latte r will be sub ject to federal recapture well within 

the next 50 years. To the extent feasible, it is the burd en of a sound licensing 

policy to minimize such inequities.

The above considerations mig ht well justify the issuance of a license effective 

as of August 26, 1935 (or even earlier) and term inating August 26, 1985, as well 

as the imposition of annual charges for th at entire period. We are persuaded, 

however, to allow for the fact th at the concept of navigability has evolved only 

grad ually and did not att ain its present dimensions unt il 1943. Prior to th at 

date , i t m ight have been reasonable for a company to assume th at th e Commission 

would no t assert jurisdiction over a project situated in a stream in which virtually 

the sole traffic ha d been the driving of logs. From 1920 to 1930, the Commission 

disclaimed jurisdiction in a majority of the cases in which declarations of intention 

were sub mitted to it. In 22 instances, rivers—many of which, including the

1

 New Hampsh ire Water Resources Board, Doc ket No. E-6807, 20 FP C 99-101.

2

 T he cons truction of any project works subsequent to the enactment of Section 23(b) of the Act in 1935 

witho ut th e con current filing of a license application or declaration of inten tion pla inly violates th at section. 

The re is little room for dispu te th at licenses for such projects should be m ade effective no t late r than the 

date of co nstruction of such project works.

3 B y Title II of the Pu blic Utility Act of 1935, the original Federal Water Power Act of 1920,41 Stat. 1063, 

was made Par t I of th e Federal Power Act and Parts I I and I II were added .

4

 H. Rept. No. 1318, House Committee on Intersta te and Foreign Commerce 26, 74th Cong., 1st sess. 

(1935); S. Re pt. No. 2796, Senate Committee on Inter sta te and Foreign Commerce 47, 74th Cong., 1st sess. 

(1935).

Section 9 of the River a nd Harb or Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. § 401, declared it unlaw ful to construct certain 

kinds of structures, including dams, over any navigable water of th e United States witho ut the consent of 

Coneress and the approval of plans by the Chief of Engine ers and the Secretary of War. Section 4(d) of 

the Federal W ater Power Act, 41 Stat.' 1065, th e forerunner of the present Section 4(e) of the Federal Power 

Act, authorized the Commission to issue licenses for hydroelectric project works situated on navigable 

waters of the United States, prov ided th at no license affecting navigable capacity should be issued until 

plans for the contemp lated stru ctures had been approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary 

of War.

85976— 62 2
6 EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTR IC POWER PROJECTS

Androscoggin, have subseque ntly been determined navigable—were found not to 

be navigable at project site even though they were known to have been used for 

the transpo rtation of forest produc ts. During tha t period the Commission app arently employed an extremely pragmatic criterion, namely, whether or not any 

actual or probab le navigation was in fact likely to be endangered by the proposed 

hydroelectric project. From 1931 until 1942, the Commission acce pted jurisdiction in 14 of the 39 declaration-of-intention cases which it acted upon bu t in only 

one such case m ade a finding of n avigability at, site. In 1940, th e Suprem e Cou rt 

held in United States v. Appalachian Power Co., 311 U.S. 377, th at a stre tch of 

river may be navigable in law even though improvements may be necessary to 

make it so in fact. While the Appalachian case was a majo r landmark in the development of the Commission’s jurisdiction, it did not deal with a river which 

had been used chiefly for logging o perations. In 1943, however, thre e Commission decisions based findings of navigability primarily upon evidence of log driving 

and rafting.5

 One cf these decisions, involving the 'Tomahawk project on the 

Wisconsin River, was affirmed in 1945 by the Cou rt of Appeals for the Seventh 

Circu it,0

 which concluded (at 147 F. 2d 748) th at “ * * * the evidence as shown 

by this record, establishes a long, regular and commercially successful use of the 

stream for the tran spo rtation of logs and rafts, and forms a reasonable basis in 

law for the conclusion that the Wisconsin River was and is a navigable water o 

the United Sta tes.”

At least as early as the 1943 decisions, the owner of every project located in a 

stream capable of being used for the transp ortation of logs was placed on notice 

of the perils of further unlicensed operation. Such perils must have been particularly appar ent to the present Applicant, for logging has been a contin uing and 

conspicuous activity on the Androscoggin down to the present day. For the 

reasons stated, it is in our view appropriate th at the license tend ered herein be 

for a termending December 31, 1993.

The same reasoning which commends the adoption of December 31, 1993, as a 

term ination date would also wa rrant us in making the license effective as of 

Jan uary 1, 1944. Were we to do so, Applicant would be liable for a nnu al charges 

commencing on such effective date and would be required as of J anuary 1, 1964, 

to establish the amortization reserves provided for in Section 10(d) of the Act. 

While such retrospective tre atm ent would be a legitimate exercise of our discretion, we are satisfied th at und er present circumstances the advancement of the 

term ination date in the manner above described gives adeq uate weight to the 

unlicensed history of the Gorham project prior to July 1, 1958. Our discretion, 

however, should not be so exercised as to ignore either of the more flagrant breaches 

of statu tor y du ty committed by Applicant in 1958 when it (a) failed to apply for a 

license even after our determination of jurisdiction over the Androscoggin in 

Docket No. E-6807; a nd (b) replaced its dam w itho ut filing either a license app lication or a declaration of intention, one or the other of which submission was 

required by Section 23(b) whether the Androscoggin was navigable or not. In 

the latte r connection, it should be pointed out th at if Applicant, subs eque nt to 

1935, had built an entirely new project withou t securing the requisite auth orization, we would not hesitate to adopt the d ate of such construction as t he effective 

date of its license. We see no reason for different tre atm ent merely because the 

unauthorized construction took the form of a replacement of an existing facility. 

Since the application now before us does not indic ate the precise date upon which 

the construction was ommenced, we are conte nt to make the license effective as 

of July 1, 1958, the first day of the month in which we dete rmined jurisdiction in 

Docket No. E-6807. In futre cases which do not involve a prior finding of navigability as to the subject river, an unauthorized construction subs equent to 1935 

or oth er unusual circum stances (e.g., the incurrence by the Commission of substantial adm inistrative, investigative, or litigative expenses directly attributab le 

to the app licant’s recalcitrance) our policy will be to tender licenses effective as of 

the beginning of the m onth in which the presen t order is issued, i.e., April 1, 1962. 

Our reason for not making future licenses effective as of th e date of their issuance 

is th at to do so might encourage still further delay in filing th e license app lications 

which the law requires.

In deciding not to impose retro spec tive charges for the period prior to July 1, 

1958, we have given some weight to th e possibility th at imposition of such charges 

might seriously deter p oten tial app licants from coming forward to comply with the 

sta tute. If, however, our experience during the next twelve months indicates

* City o f S po on er , W isco ns in , 3 F P C 986 (A pri l 20, 1943) W isco ns in M ichiga n Po we r C om pa ny , 3 F P C 449 (J u ly 27, 19431; W isco ns in Pub lic Serv ice Corpo rat ion (T o m ah aw k ), 3 F P C 495 (J u ly 30, 1943).

• Wisc on sin P ubli c Serv ice Corpo ration v. F .P .C ., 147 F . 2d 743 (7 th C ir. 1945), cert , d en ., 325 U .S . 880.
EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT S 7

th a t volu nta ry co op er at io n will in an y ev en t not be fo rthc om in g, we m ay we ll 

wish to re co ns ider th e po si tion we now ta k e on th e qu es tion of bac kdat in g.

In pr es cr ib in g a lic ense te rm s which ta kes in to ac co un t th e pri or un lic en sed 

ope ra tion of th e pr oje ct , we revi ve a po lic y re pea te dly em pl oy ed by th e Com ­

miss ion from 1942 unti l 195 7. D uring th a t pe riod it wa s th e Com m ission ’s 

pr ac tice to iss ue lic enses effecti ve as of Jan u ary 1, 1938 , an d te rm in ati ng ei th er 

on Ju ne 30, 1970, th e fiftie th an niv er sa ry of th e ad op tion of th e Fed er al W at er 

Po wer Ac t of 1920,7

 or, in th e case of pro je ct s co nst ru ct ed la te r th a n 1920, 50 

ye ar s from th e d ate of su ch co ns tr uct io n. Jan u ary 1, 1938 , wa s ut iliz ed as th e 

effecti ve dat e, from whic h an nual ch ar ge s we re co m pu te d, in ord er th a t ea ch 

licensee m ig ht bea r its fa ir sh ar e of th e ex pe ns es in cu rr ed by th e Com mission in 

co nn ec tion w ith a ge ne ral in ves tigat io n of unl ic en se d pro je ct s w hich it h ad init ia te d 

by or de r of D ec em be r 23, 1937. The ba sis fo r th e pr es cr ib ed te rm in ati on dat es 

was sp elled o u t in th e follo wi ng pa ss ag e from th e Com m ission ’s o pi ni on in Me tro ­

po litan Ed iso n Co mp an y, 6 F P C 189 (194 7) (a t 19 1- 19 2) :

“ The appli cant als o re ques ts th a t th e lic ense co ve r a long er pe riod th an merely 

to Ju ne 30, 1970, as pr es cr ibed in th e ord er of N ov em be r 7, 1944. E xcept in 

cases whe re an ea rlie r d ate is appro pri at e, Ju ne 30, 1970, is th e te rm in ati on dat e 

pres cr ibed by th e Co mmiss ion sin ce 1938 in all licens es for co nst ru ct ed pro je ct s 

oper at in g w ithout pr io r Fe de ra l auth ori ty . The York H av en p la n t wa s fir st 

plac ed in op er at io n in 1904 an d a lie *nse sh ou ld ha ve been obt ai ned as ea rly as 

1920 whe n th e original Po we r Act be ca me law . The ob lig atio n to obta in a 

lic en se re sts up on th e ow ne r of ea ch hy dr oe le ct ric pr oje ct oper at in g w ithout 

appro pri at e Fed er al au th o ri ty in st re am s su bje ct to th e ju risd ic tion of Co ng res s. 

If a co m pa ny co uld willfully vi ol ate th e law and fai l to ob ta in a lic ense fo r 26 

ye ar s as th is ap pli cant ha s do ne , an d th en rece ive a 50 -yea r lic ense from th e 

date on wh ich it lik 'd th e ap pl ic at io n, its lic ense wo uld ru n for 26 ye ar s more 

th an if it ha d ob ta in ed th e requ isite auth ori ty in 1920. To gra nt th is re ques t 

of th e a ppli ca nt wo uld be to a cc ord it a sp ec ia l privile ge not a cc or de d to c om pa ni es 

which ap pl ie d for appro pri ate au th ori ty a t an ea rlier date an d no t co nte m pla te d 

by th e Con gress in th e sta tu te lim itin g th e license pe riod to 50 ye ars. Hen ce in 

th is, as in oth er simila r cases , th e Co mmiss ion ha s lim ited th e te rm to Ju n e 30, 

1970, an d th e re ques t sh ou ld be re fu se d. ”

W hile th e specific te rm in ati on an d effecti ve dat es pr ev io us ly ut iliz ed by th e 

Com miss ion ar e no long er de sirable, an d wh ile, as m en tion ed ea rli er, we do no t 

find it ne ce ss ary to de cid e w he th er a lic ense sh ou ld ha ve b< e n ob ta in ed as ea rly 

as 1920, we do su bs cr ibe to th e ba sic re as on in g set fo rt h in th e para gra ph quot ed 

ab ov e.

In Carolina A lu m in um Co mp an y, Pro je ct No . 219 7 an d Carolina Pow er an d

Lig ht Co mp an y, Pro je ct No. 2206, 19 F PC 704, co ns ol idated cas es de cide d in 1958, 

th e Com miss ion disc ar de d it s long es ta bl ishe d bac kdat in g po lic y and re pudia te d 

th e logic of M etropolitan Ed iso n. The po sitio n it to ok is th at th e Act do es not 

requ ire an y co m pa ny to ap pl y for a lic en se unti l su ch tim e as an au th o ri ta ti v e 

det er m in at io n ha s be en m ad e th a t th e st re am in which th e co m pa ny ope ra te s 

is na viga bl e. P urs uant to th is vie w, th e Com miss ion ad opte d a po lic y of iss uing 

50 yea r licenses effecti ve as of th e dat e on which its ju risd ic tion ov er th e rive r in 

qu es tion wa s det er m in ed .8

 We fin d no ba sis , ho wev er, ei th er in th e la ng ua ge of 

th e Act or its legi slativ e his to ry , for th e co nc lusio n th a t a rive r do es not be come 

“na vi gab le ,” or a lic ense ne ce ss ary, until th e Com miss ion or some oth er au th o ri ty 

ha s so ru led. On th e contr ar y, Se cti on 23 (b) flatly pros cribes th e un lic en se d 

op er at io n of a p ow er p ro je ct in “ na viga bl e w ate rs ,” a nd S ec tio n 3 (8), which d efi nes 

“ na vi ga bl e w ate rs ,” is ad dr es se d direc tly to th e pro je ct ow ne rs no les s th an to t he 

Co mm iss ion . The eff ect of ou r pre se nt or de r is to ab an don th e pr em ises en un ci ­

ate d in th e Ca rolina A lu m in um case and to re tu rn to w hat we co nc eive to be th e 

so un de r pr in cipl es of Metropo litan Ed iso n.

Re fer en ce sh ou ld be m ad e to tw o as pe ct s of th e p re se nt ap pl ic at io n w hich m ig ht 

pe rh ap s be th o u g h t to ex ce pt it from th e ge ne ra l ru les dis cu ssed ab ov e. Fir st , 

th e And roscog gin River , as no te d ea rlier, wa s one of se ve ra l st re am s originally 

de te rm in ed by th e Com miss ion to be no nn av ig ab le des pi te its use fo r log ging 

pu rpos es. I t co uld be ar gued th a t by vir tu e of th is dete rm in at io n, m ad e in 1925

7

 The Federal Water Power Act was approved on J un e 10. 1920, 41 Stat. 1063.

8 See, «.<?., Duke Power Corn-pony. Project No. 2232,20 FP C 360 (September 17,1958); Marathon Corporation,

Project No. 2212 (April 28, 1959), (un reported) ; Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company, Proje ct No. 2113, 

21 F PC 785 (May 28,1959); Tomahawk Power Company, Pro ject No. 2239,22 FPC 1 (July 1,1959); -NekoosaEdwards Paper Company, Project No. 2255, 22 FP C 473 (September 1, 1959); Consolidated Water Power

Company, Project No. 2256, 22 F PC 638 (October 5, 1959). This policy was foreshadowed by the Commission’s decision in Montana Power Company, 15 FP C 1330 (April 23, 1956). Tha t decision, however, 

which involved a proposed u nit as well as existing structures, was based on the desirability of a uniform license term for all un its of a single developm ent rather th an upon the doctrine expounded in Carolina

Alu minum, and was no t necessarily inconsistent w ith Metropolitan Edison.
8 EXE MPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTR IC POWER PROJECT S

in re sp on se to a dec la ra tion of in te ntion by th e D um m er Po wer C om pan y,9

 it was not un lawfu l for A pp lic an t a nd it s pred ec esso rs to o pe ra te t he G orh am p ro je ct 

w ithout a lic en se pri or to th e Co mmiss ion’s 1958 re det er m in at io n of th e st atu s of 

th e rive r. We ca nnot ac ce pt th a t pr op os iti on . A fter 1943, th e nav ig ab le 

ch ar ac te r of th e And roscog gin un de r th en pr ev ai lin g st andard s wa s no le ss ob viou s 

th a n th a t of oth er rive rs which were simila rly us ed for log gin g, b u t for which no 

pr io r de te rm in at io n had be en mad e. Once it be ca me clea r th a t th e nar ro w 

ju risd ic tion al c ri te ri a fo rm erly e mpl oy ed by t he Com miss ion had be en s up er se de d, 

App lic an t ha d no gre at er ri gh t to rely up on th e D um m er decis ion th a n up on any 

of t he oth er d ec isi on s r en de re d on th e basis of th e ou tm od ed c ri te ri a of th e 192 0’s. 10

Th e seco nd note w ort hy fe at ur e is th a t in 1958 and 1959, A ppl ic an t re m ov ed 

its old da m an d buil t a new one. Th e co nt en tion m ig ht be mad e th a t, ha vi ng 

in ve sted addi tion al fu nd s in th e G or ha m pr oj ec t, A pp lic an t sh ou ld be gra nte d a 

50 -yea r licens e te rm fro m th e da te of th is part ia l re co ns truc tion . In a cas e wh ere 

co ns truc tion re su lts in th e re pl ac em en t of su bst anti all y all ex isting facilit ies an d 

th e m at er ia l en la rg em en t of th e sca le of th e pro je ct , th er e m ig ht co nc eiva bly be 

some ba sis for pr es cr ib in g a lic ense te rm en di ng 50 ye ar s fro m th e dat e of such 

im pr ov em en ts. The re pl ac em en t of one tim ber -c ri bbed da m by an oth er , howev er, do es no t w arr ant su ch tr eatm en t. H ad th e G or ha m pr oj ec t al re ad y be en 

un der licens e as to th e co m m en ce m en t of new co ns truc tion , we wou ld am en d th e 

license to includ e th e ne w da m, n o t iss ue a ne w 50 -y ea r licens e for th e en tire 

pr oj ec t. I t wo uld be an om al ou s to es ta blish a la te r te rm in ati on dat e merely 

be ca us e A pp lic an t had faile d to co mply w ith th e st atu te .

Whil e th e license te rm pr es cr ib ed in th e in sta n t cas e will serve as a mod el fo r 

fu tu re Co mmiss ion ac tion , it sho ul d not b e view ed a s a rig id for m ul a to be fol low ed 

m ec ha nica lly in all cas es in vo lv in g pre-19 35 pro je ct s on st re am s us ed fo r log ging . 

The re m ay well be circ um stan ce s i n which th e ad option of D ec em be r 31, 1993, as 

a te rm in at io n dat e or Ap ril 1, 1962, as an effecti ve dat e wo uld be un wi se or in ­

appro pri at e. Sp ecifically , we de cli ne to an ti cip ate th e ap pro ac h we will ta ke 

whe n pr es en te d w ith a lice nse ap pl ic at io n em br ac in g pr op os ed as well as ex isting 

pro je ct wo rks .

The Sec re ta ry of t he Arm y an d th e Chief of Eng in ee rs ha ve ap pro ved th e pl an s 

of th e pro je ct st ru ctu re s inso fa r as th e in te re st s of nav ig at io n are co nc erne d.

An A ss is ta nt Sec re ta ry of th e In te ri or, in re port in g on th e ap pl ic at io n, reco mm en de d fo r inclus io n in an y lic ense issu ed cer ta in co nd iti on s in th e in te re st s of 

fish life.

The Commission finds:

(1) A pp lica nt is a co rp or at io n or ga ni ze d under th e law s of th e S ta te of New 

la m ps hi re an d ha s su bm itte d sa tisf ac to ry ev iden ce of co mplianc e w ith th e 

eq ui re m en ts of all ap pl ic ab le st ate law s in so fa r as ne ce ssary to ef fe ctua te th e

pu rp os es of a lic en se fo r th e pr oj ec t.

(2) T he pro je ct co ns ists of:

(a) All land s co nst it uti ng t he p ro je ct a re a an d e nc losed by the pro je ct b ou nd ar y 

or th e li m its of w hich a re o th er wise de fin ed , and/o r in te re st in su ch lan ds n ec es sa ry 

or appro pri ate fo r th e pu rp os es of th e pro je ct , w het he r su ch land s or in te re st 

th er ei n ar e ow ne d or he ld by th e licensee or by th e U ni te d S ta te s; su ch pro je ct 

ar ea an d pro je ct boundary be ing mor e specifica lly show n an d de sc rib ed by ce rt ai n 

ex hi bi ts wh ich fo rm ed p a rt of t he ap pl ic at io n fo r lic ense an d whic h are de sign ated 

and de scrib ed as fol low s:

J : (F P C No. 22 88 -1) G en er al M ap of Pro je ct Ar ea; and

Exh ib it K: (F PC No s. 22 88 -2 and -3 ) D et ai l M ap of Pro je ct Ar ea.

(b) P ro je ct works co ns istin g of: An “L ” sh ap ed da m co mpr ised of th re e 

sections, (1) a rock-fi lle d tim ber cr ib section face d w ith stee l pilin g and no rm al ly 

su rm ou nt ed by flas hb oa rd s, (2) a roc k-filled ti m ber cr ib se ction face d w ith wo od 

plan ki ng an d no rm al ly su rm oun te d by hing ed wo od fla sh bo ards , an d (3) a co ncrete gra vit y section no rm ally su rm ounte d w ith flas hb oa rd s an d includ ing a 

ga te d log sluice -w ay ; a re se rv oir w ith no rm al w at er su rfac e a t el ev at io n 773.52 

fee t (U SG S d a tu m ); a ca na l used as a fo re ba y ex te nd in g to th e p ow erho us e in ta ke 

se ct io n; a po werho us e co nt ai ni ng tw o 58 3-ho rsep ow er tu rb in es co nn ec te d to 

40 0- ki lo w at t ge ne ra to rs an d tw o 1000 -hor sepo wer tu rb in es co nn ec ted to 675 - 

kilow at t gen er at ors ; a 2.4 -K V tran sm ission lin e ex tend in g to th e Gor ha m su bsta ti o n ; re m ot e co nt ro l oper at in g equip m en t; an d appurt enant fa cilit ies; th e 

lo ca tion , natu re , an d ch ar ac te r of w hich a re mor e specifically sho wn an d de scrib ed 

by th e ex hi bi ts he re in be fo re cited an d by ce rtai n oth er ex hibi ts wh ich also form ed

• Fifth Annual Report of the Federal Power Commission, p. 57.

” We express no opinion as to how the m att er mig ht stan d if Applicant, rather tha n the Dum mer Power 

Com pany, had been the p arty which obtained the prior favorable determ ination. Tn the present case, a t 

least, there is no question of collateral estoppel or res judicata.
EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS 9

p a rt of th e ap pl ic at io n for lic en se an d which ar e des ig na te d an d de sc ribe d as 

fol low s:

Exh ibit L: G en er al Design Dra win gs .

FPC No. Sheet No. Description

2288-4 1 Plan of dam.

2288-6 3 Dam—Plan of timb er section.

2288-7 4 Dam —Sections of timber sect ion.

2288-8 5 Gene rator floor pla n—Unit No. 1 and 2.

2288-9 6 Powerhouse—Transverse and lon gitu dinal sections—Units Nos. 1 and 2.

2288-10 7 Gene rator floor plan—Un its Nos. 3 an d 4.

2288-14 11 Powerhouse—Longitudinal section.

2288-15 12 Powerhouse—Transverse section.

E xh ib it M: Sixt ee n ty pew ri tt en pa ges, “ G en er al D es cr ip tio n of M ec ha ni ca l 

and Ele ct rica l E q u ip m en t” , filed in th e Com miss ion Dec em be r 27, 1960.

(c) All ot her st ru ctu re s, fix tures, equi pm en t or facilit ies us ed or us eful in th e 

m ai nt en an ce an d oper at io n of th e pro je ct and lo ca te d on th e pro je ct ar ea , includ in g su ch port able pro pert y as m ay be used or useful in co nn ec tio n w ith th e 

pro je ct or an y p a rt thereo f, w he th er lo ca te d on or off th e pro je ct ar ea , if and to 

th e exte nt th a t th e inclus ion of su ch pro pert y as a p a rt of th e pr oj ec t is ap pro ved 

or ac qu iesc ed in by th e Com miss ion; also, all ripar ia n or oth er righ ts, th e use or 

possessio n of which is ne ce ss ar y or appro pri at e in th e m ai nt en an ce an d op er at io n 

of th e pr oj ec t.

(3) N o co nflic tin g ap pl ic at io n is be fore th e Co mmiss ion. Pu blic no tic e of th e 

filing of th e ap pl ic at io n ha s be en give n as re qu ired by th e Ac t. No pro te st s ha ve 

be en rec eiv ed.

(4) The issu an ce of a license as her ei naf te r pr ov id ed will no t affect a Gov er nm ent dam or th e de vel op m en t of an y w at er reso urce s for pu blic pu rp os es which 

sh ou ld be undert aken by th e U nited Sta te s.

(5) Sub je ct to th e te rm s an d co nd itio ns he re in af te r im po sed, th e pro je ct is 

bes t adapte d to a co m pr eh en sive pl an for im pr ov in g an d de ve loping th e And roscoggin R iv er for th e use or be ne fit of in te rs ta te or foreign co mmerce , for th e 

im pr ov em en t an d utiliza tion of w at er -p ow er dev el op m en t, an d for oth er be ne ­

ficial pu bl ic use s, in cl ud in g re cr ea tion al pu rpos es.

(6) The follo wing de sc ribe d tran sm ission an d elec tric al facilit ies ar e p a rt s of 

th e pro je ct w ithi n th e m ea ni ng o f Se cti on 3(1 1) of t he Act and s ho uld be in cl ud ed 

in th e lic en se fo r th e pro je ct as he re in af te r pro vi de d:

(a) th e 2. 4- KV lin e to th e G or ha m su bst at io n

(b) th e 2. 4/33 -K V tr an sf or m er s in th e G or ha m su bst at io n

(c) th e 2.4-KV sw itc hing facilit ies

(d) sw itch in g facilit ies ne ce ss ar y to co nn ec t th e 2. 4/33 -K V tr an sf orm ers 

to th e 33 -K V bus a t th e G or ha m su bst at io n

(7) The in st al le d ho rsep ow er ca pac ity of th e pro je ct here in af te r au th ori ze d 

fo r th e pu rp os e of co m pu ting th e capac ity co m po nen t of th e adm in is tr ati ve 

annual ch arge is 2,9 00 ho rsep ow er.

(8) The am ount of a nnual ch ar ge s to be pa id under th e license fo r th e purp os e 

of re im bu rs in g th e U ni te d S ta te s for th e co sts of ad m in is tr ati on of P a rt I of th e 

A ct is re as on ab le as her ei naf te r fixe d an d spe cified .

(9) The en er gy gen er at ed by th e co nst ru ct ed pro je ct is dis tr ib ute d an d sold 

by A pp lic an t fo r pu bl ic uti li ty pu rp os es .

(10) The ex hi bi ts des ig na te d and de sc ribe d in fin ding (2) ab ov e co nf or m to th e 

Com m ission ’s r ul es an d re gu la tion s and sh ou ld be ap pro ved as p a rt of th e lic en se 

fo r th e pro je ct as her ei naf te r pr ov id ed .

The Co mm iss ion orders:

(A) Thi s lic en se is issu ed to Pub lic Se rvice C om pan y of New H am psh ir e 

under Se cti on 4(e) of th e Act fo r a pe riod effective Ju ly 1, 1958, an d te rm in ati ng 

D ec em be r 31, 1993, fo r th e co ntinu ed oper at io n an d m ai nte nan ce of th e G or ha m 

P ro je ct No . 228 8, lo ca te d on th e And roscog gin Riv er , a na vi ga bl e w ate r of th e 

U nited Sta te s, in th e to w n of G or ha m , Co os C ounty , S ta te of New H am psh ir e, 

su bje ct to th e te rm s and co nd itio ns of th e Act which is in co rp ora te d he re in by 

re fe re nc e as a p a rt of th is lic en se, and su bje ct to su ch ru le s and re gula tions as 

th e Co mmiss ion ha s issu ed or pr es cr ib ed under th e pr ov isio ns of th e Act.

(B) Thi s lic en se is als o su bje ct to th e te rm s an d co nd itio ns se t fo rt h in F orm 

L -3 , Dec em be r 15, 1953, enti tl ed “ Ter m s an d C on di tion s of Li ce ns e fo r C onst ru cte d M aj or Pro je ct Af fec tin g N av ig ab le W at er s of th e U nited S ta te s” (17
10 EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS

FPC 385 -389) which ter ms and con dition s, des ign ate d as Articles 1 th ro ug h 17, 

are a ttac he d hereto an d ma de a par t hereof, exc ept for t he la st senten ce of A rticle 

11; an d su bjec t to th e following spec ial con dition s set fo rth here in as additio na l 

artic le s:

Article 18. Th e Licen see sha ll pay to th e Un ited States th e following annu al 

charges, effectiv e as of April 1, 1958:

For th e pur pose of reimb urs ing t he Un ite d State s for th e costs of adm inistr at io n of Par t I of th e Act one (1) cent per horsepower on th e au thorize d 

ins tal led capacit y (2,900 horsepo wer) plus two and one -ha lf (2%) cen ts per 

1,000 kil ow att -hours of gross energy generat ed durin g th e calen dar year for 

which th e cha rge is made.

Article 19. Th e Licensee sha ll for th e protec tio n of navigatio n, co ns tru ct, 

mainta in, an d op erate at its own expense suc h lights and othe r sign als on fixed 

str uc tu res in or ove r navig abl e wa ters of t he Un ite d State s as ma y be dir ected by 

th e Secre tar y of th e Dep artm en t in which th e Coast Gua rd is opera tin g.

Article 20. Th e Licen see sha ll constru ct, ma int ain , and opera te, or sha ll ar ­

ran ge for th e con structio n, ma int enance, and operati on of arti ficial pro paga tio n 

facilitie s an d suc h othe r pe rm an en t fish fac iliti es an d protec tiv e devices an d shall 

com ply w ith su ch re aso nab le mo dification s of t he pr ojec t s truc tu re s an d operati on 

in th e interest of fish an d wildlife reso urces, pro vid ed, th at suc h modification s 

sha ll be rea sonably con sis ten t with th e pr im ary purpo se of th e proje ct an d not 

un du ly im pa ir th e power value of th e proje ct, as may be presc ribed hereaft er by 

th e Com mission upo n its own mo tion or upon th e recomm endatio n of th e Secreta ry of th e In terio r or th e New Ha mp shire Fish an d Game Dep artm en t, after 

notice and op po rtu nity for hearing and upon a finding bas ed on su bs ta nt ia l eviden ce th at such m odifica tion s are n ece ssary an d des irab le, an d consisten t with the 

pro visions of th e Act.

Article 21. Whenever th e Un ited States sha ll desire, in con nection with th e 

proje ct, to c on struct fish han dling fac ilities or t o impro ve th e exi stin g fish h andli ng 

facilities at its expense, the Lic ensee shall p ermit the Unit ed Stat es or its de sig nat ed 

age ncy to use, fre e of cost, s uch of Licensee’s lan ds an d inte rests in la nds, r eservoirs, 

wa ter wa ys an d project works as may be rea sonably req uir ed to com plete such 

fish hand lin g facilitie s or suc h im provem ents the reo f. In addit ion , after notice 

an d op po rtun ity for hea ring th e Licensee sha ll modify th e proje ct op erati on as 

ma y be pre scrib ed by th e Com miss ion, consistent with th e prim ary purpo se of 

th e proje ct, in ord er to p ermit th e main ten ance a nd o peratio n of the fish han dling 

fac iliti es co ns tru cted or improved by th e United States un der th e pro vision of 

this arti cle . Th is articl e shall no t be in terp reted to place any obligation on th e 

Un ite d St ates to cons tru ct or impro ve fish handlin g facilities or to relieve th e 

Licensee of an y obligation un der thi s license.

Article 22. Th e Licen see sha ll install additio na l ca pacit y an d make othe r 

cha nges in th e project as dir ected by th e Com miss ion, to th e ex tent th at it is 

eco nom ically sound an d in th e public inte re st to do so, after notice an d oppo rtu nity for hea ring.

Article 23. Th e Licensee shall, after notice an d op po rtu nity for hea ring , 

coordin ate th e opera tio n of th e pr oject with such othe r pow er sys tem s as th e 

Com mission ma y dir ect in th e in terest of p<».. r an d othe r beneficial pub lic uses 

of wa ter reso urces, th e benefits of which sha ll be shared eq uitably by th e pa rticipa nts in suc h coo rdination.

(C) Th e exhib its des ign ate d an d des crib ed in finding (2) abo ve are approv ed 

as pa rt of this license.

(D) Th is order sha ll become final 30 days fro m th e da te of its issuan ce unless 

appli cation for reh earin g sha ll be filed as pro vid ed in Section 313(a) of th e Act, 

and failure to file such an applica tio n sha ll co ns tit ut e accepta nce of thi s license. 

In ack now led gm ent of th e accepta nce of this license, it sha ll be signed for th e
EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT S 11

Licensee an d re turned to the Commission within 60 days from the da te of issuance 

of this order.

By the Commission.

J oseph H. Gutride, Secretary.

In Testimony of its acknowledgment of acceptance of all of the provisions, 

term s and conditions of this license, Public Service Company of New Hampshire,

th is _______ day o f ____________ , 19___ , has caused its corp orate name to be

signed hereto by _______________________ , i t s _______________ President, and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto an d a tte ste d by ____________________ ,

i t s ___________ Secretary, pursu ant to a resolution of its Board of Directors

duly adopted on t h e _______ day of____________ , 19___ , a certified copy of

the record of which is att ached hereto.

P ublic Service Company of New Hampshire,

B y -----------------------------------------------------------------------

President.

Atte st:

Secretary.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Now, as I understand it, with this legislation you would then he in a position to issue these licenses to these 

700 unlicensed organizations so tha t they could operate within the 

law, and there would be no gray area insofar as the question of navigability of the stream is concerned, or other matters tha t were causing 

this to be more or less in suspended animation?

Mr. Swidler. That puts it very well, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Let me ask you this question about it. On 

the question of navigability how far—I am sorry, 1 haven’t read this 

opinion—how far does this opinion go with relation to the adoption 

of the basic theory of navigation—-of a stream being a navigable 

stream—such as the general philosophy that was kicked around tha t 

if a stream contributes to the How of a stream, it becomes a navigable 

stream: then it becomes a component part of the system to the extent 

that it, as an essential part, becomes also navigable under the theory 

of Federal jurisdiction?

Mr. Swidler. This case does not in itself undertake to prescribe 

the standards for determination of navigability, but merely recites 

the history of the development of th at legal theory, and refers to the 

1943 decision in which the Commission concluded that a history of 

logging was an adequate basis for determining navigability.

Most streams have such a history. So that that decision in 1943 

brought most hydroelectric projects within the jurisdiction of the 

Commission. In addition to all navigability, the Federal jurisdiction 

can also be based upon the effect upon navigation which is the element I think tha t you were referring to. In this case, in the Androscoggin case, I believe there is a history of actual navigation.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. But this opinion more or less records the 

history of the whole situation?

Mr. Swidler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Now, let me ask you this, Mr. Swidler. If 

the Congress should pass this bill, in your opinion would it create any 

history as to the intent of Congress with relation to the question of
12 EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS

navigability as it affects water rights or power rights, or, let’s say, 

Federal jurisdiction on this whole subject?

Mr. Swidler. No, sir; it isn’t intended to have any impact on th at 

at all. It is only intended, with respect to whatever projects come 

within our jurisdiction, to enable us to waive the great mass of procedural requirements tha t are applicable to large projects. It enables 

us to waive fees in cases where the determination of the fees and the 

cost of making the determination is as much as the money we may 

receive. In a 2,000-horsepower project, for example, the annual fee 

would be about $200.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. And it is not the intention of the Federal 

Power Commission or anyone associated with the legislation so far 

as you know, to do anything except to change this on a horsepower 

basis. If the Federal Government had jurisdiction of a project, then 

whether or not it was exempt would be determined by whether or not 

it was over 100 horsepower.

And what you are doing now is simply saying that if you had Federal 

jurisdiction, then it is exempt from these licensing procedures that 

have become burdensome if it is less than 2,000 horsepower.

Mr. Swidler. Yes, sir. The only qualification to tha t is tha t it 

authorizes the Commission to make the exemption, and the Commission could waive some provisions and not waive others, depending on 

the circumstances.

For example, we would not plan to waive the requirements with 

respect to protection of the fish resources at these projects.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. That is. the thing 1 was coming to next. 

Insofar as this legislation is concerned, it doesn’t just give a blanket 

exemption to the project simply because it is less than 2,000 horsepower, but it places in the Commission the discretion as to the requirements t ha t can be had. In other words, even under this legislation or under a situation where you presently have 100 horsepower, do 

1 understand correctly that if you have some fears about certain things 

tha t are going on, you can make requirem ents of showings by those 

people under the 100 horsepower, or you can waive those?

Mr. Swidler. Tha t is exactly right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. But if they are over 100 horsepower, then 

you must require everything?

Mr. Swidler. That is exactly right. This would simply give us 

the authorization by Congress to waive requirements in projects up 

to 2,000 horsepower. Above tha t level we would have no authority 

to waive these requirements, which are very stringent. The requirements were put in so th at they would cover everything up to the very 

largest, such as Hells Canyon or Nez Perce. Some of these requirements which were most appropriate for very large projects are burdensome with respect to the very small ones.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. What does the Commission have in mind as 

to the procedures administratively, should this bill be passed?

Mr. Swidler. Should this bill be passed, we would then advise the 

700 owners of projects of less than 2,000 horsepower tha t they might 

apply for minor licenses, and we would make clear the relatively 

relaxed procedural requirements in tha t connection, and we think 

this would facilitate getting compliance with the provisions of the 

Federal Power Act which require them to secure licenses.
EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT S 13

Mr. R ogers of Tex as. Do you feel th a t un der yo ur rul em aking 

powe rs th at you could lay down broad guidelines or broad rules or 

broad policies to cope with thi s situation, or would you ha ve to trea t 

each case sep ara tely?

Mr. SwIdler. No, sir ; Con gress ha s given us au th or ity to prescribe 

rules and reg ula tions to fill in the details of pro ced ura l req uirem ents.

Mr. R ogers of Tex as. But w ha t I am th ink ing ab ou t is this: in sofar 

as this is concern ed, do you an tic ipate th at th at can be handled , th at 

this sit ua tio n can prob ably be handled by an all-encompassing ride 

on all matters, we will say all of the 700, or do you feel th at ord ers 

would have to be ma de in each case?

Mr. Swidle r. We would issue a license in each case. We do now. 

M ajor pr oje ct licenses are sh ort an d simple, bu t they do retain wha tever elements of Fe deral control are stil l necessa ry.

Mr. R ogers of Texas. Now , Mr. Swid ler, I notice in th e Fe de ral 

Pow er A ct— th is is w ha t I h ave in m ind —the power of the Co mm ission 

to waive—let me ju st rea d this, section 10, subd ivis ion (i ):

In issuing licenses for a minor p art only of the complete project or for a complete project of not more than 100 horsepower installed capacity, the Commission 

may in its discretion waive such conditions, provisions, and requirements of this 

part, except the license period of 50 years as it may deem to be to the public 

nterest to waive under the circumstances.

Now, my concern has to do with yo ur de ter minati on of wha t is the 

public inter est, wh ethe r or no t you can lay down a broad ride as to 

the pub lic interest with relati on to all pl an ts of installed capa city of 

less th an 2,000 horsepower, or wh eth er or no t you would have to do 

th at with rega rd to eac h pa rti cu lar case.

Mr. Swidl er. I th in k we would have a gen era l rule whi ch wou ld 

ap ply to all, but as each application cam e in we migh t make special 

provisions. Fo r example, each license m ight have different provisions 

with res pect to saf ety , and to th e protectio n of fisheries. Th ere 

would b e a v ariatio n from license to license, but the form of a pplication 

would be th e same, and mo st of the majo r ter ms wou ld be th e same.

In the form of mi nor license, the re are thr ee pages of te xt ref erring 

to pa rti cu lar docume nts and pla ns and drawings, whi ch will va ry 

from case to case which is followed by two or three pag es of wha t 

you migh t call boilerplate , stan da rd provisions.

So that there would be some sta nd ar d provisions and some provisions which would va ry, depending upo n the pla ns and the designs 

and the fish problem s, and so forth.

Mr. R ogers of Tex as. And once you ma ke thes e rules, or by the 

exercise o f yo ur rul em aking power, com pliance of t ha t, of course, would 

be a bar to any discretio nary actio n on the pa rt of the Com mission 

unless you change th at by sub seq uen t actio n of yo ur rul em aking 

power?

Mr. Swidle r. As we saw changes necessary we would ma ke the m. 

But of course this is a p rocedu re th at has been tested now for a p erio d 

of many yea rs. Th e form o f the minor licenses a nd the hand lin g of 

the m is well establ ished. Th is legisla tion would only increase the 

are a in which we were free to issue the minor licenses.

M r. R ogers of Texas. Th an k you, sir.

Are there an y fu rth er questio ns? Mr. You nger.

Mr. Younger. Mr. Ch air ma n, the re are two things I would like to 

inquire of. One, pertaining to this bill, why do you exempt the India n 

tribal land?
14 EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS

Mr. Swidler. The statute requires us to, Mr. Younger. If you 

will notice the p art of section 10 that the chairman just read, there is 

a proviso at the end of 10(i) providing “th at the provisions hereof 

shall not apply for annual charges for use of lands within Indian reservations.” The Congress has had special solicitude for Indian rights 

and provided some exemptions.

Mr. Younger. The other question is a little aside from this, but 

what progress are you making toward setting up a schedule of fees for 

licensees which would tend toward paying the entire cost of the Commission operation?

Mr. Swidler. 1 am not sure 1 understand the question. Let me 

answer it as best I understand it-----

Mr. Younger. As you know, in the previous administration there 

was a request that these regulatory agencies bring a schedule of fees 

for the licensing and supervision that would tend to more nearly 

compensate the Government for the operation of the regulatory 

agency. And this applies to all of them. And this administration 

has followed along the same line.

And I was wondering what progress you are making in setting up 

a schedule of fees.

Mr. Swidler. We have under consideration such a schedule for 

early submission to the Bureau of the Budget. This is a fairly 

complex thing under the circumstances.

Mr. Younger. I know it is. But 1 am hopeful that progress will 

be made in that field.

Mr. Swidler. You probably know that with respect to hydro 

licensing fees are prescribed, and that we receive over $2 million a 

year from hydro licensing. But there are other areas of activity 

where we do not charge fees, Mr. Younger.

Mr. Younger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Any further questions?

Mr. T homson. Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to inquire, Mr. Swidler, 

does vour Commission insist on taking jurisdiction solely on the basis 

of the navigability of the stream involved?

Mr. Swidler. We take jurisdiction wherever a project is located 

on a. navigable stream, yes, sir.

Mr. T homson. Are there any other elements tha t are considered 

besides navigability which would in effect prevent your Commission 

from taking jurisdiction and issuing a license? We had some problems 

on the Namekagon in Wisconsin and the Flambeaux River and the 

State was very anxious to preserve the stream in its natural state 

because of the bureau of the area, because it was a white water stream, 

and because there had n’t been any navigation of the stream by the 

French pioneers in their bateaus 60 years ago.

Mr. Swidler. I think I understand your question, Mr. Thomson. 

While we take jurisdiction we don’t automatically issue a license to 

every applicant. Our standard is the best use of tlie water resources 

which are under our jurisdiction. If the best use in a particular 

case should prove to he for recreational purposes or fish purposes, 

or some other use which precluded a dam, we would not license the 

project. Our standard is the highest and best development of our 

water resources, which doesn’t necessarily mean a hydroelectric dam 

at every site. But so far as jurisdiction is concerned, this is a statutory
EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT S 15

question, and a constitutional question and we would assert 

jurisdiction at every navigable site.

Mr. R ogers of Texas. Any further questions?

(No response.)

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Mr. Swidler, let me ask one furth er question. Now, would the passage of this bill in any way affect the 

provisions of section 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

where you are of course required to consult with the Dep artm ent of 

of Interior and the State agencies?

Mr. Swidler. No, sir, it would not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Have you consulted with the Department 

of the Interior?

Mr. Swidler. It is our uniform practice to consult with the Department of the Interior.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. And what is their position on this bill, do 

you know?

Mr. Swidler. I think their position on the bill, as I understand it, 

is that they want to be sure that this bill does not affect our practice 

of cooperation under section 2 of the act to which you referred, and 

so far as I know, there is no difference between us on tha t point.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Wha t about the State agencies; have you 

had any information from them on this subject matter?

Mr. Swidler. No. And as I recall, they did not participate in the 

hearings on the predecessor bill. I believe it is also our practice to 

secure the views of the States.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. In other words, your position is that this 

bill would not change your responsibility to confer with the heads of 

the State agencies?

Mr. Swidler. Yes, sir. It would not.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. But this actually is confined simply to a 

change in the yardstick of the amount of power being produced?

Mr. Swidler. Tha t is right, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Mr. Kornegav, any questions?

Mr. Kornegay. No, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Swidler.

Mr. Swidler seems to be the first and the last witness.

At this point in the record we will insert any material received in the 

next few days.

(The following material was received for the record:)

[Telegram]

Sa c r a m en to , C a l if ., J u n e 13 , 1962'

H o n . Or en H a r r is ,

Ch airm an Su bcom mittee on Com mun ica tio ns an d Power,

Ho use of R epresent atives , Was hing ton, D.C .

R eg re t in ab ility to appear or to pro vi de det ai le d pre se nta tion a t your su bcom m itte e’s he ar in g on H .R . 6951 an d S. 1606 re F P C ex em pt io n sm al l hydro ­

elec tric pro je ct s from ce rt ai n prov isions . A t th e pre se nt tim e all po wer pro je ct s 

falli ng w ithi n th e ju ri sd ic tion of th e Fed era l Po w er Co mmiss ion ar e re fe rred to 

th e U.S . Fi sh and Wild life Se rvice and th e appro pri ate S ta te ag en cy fo r review 

in re ga rd to pro je ct effects on fish and wi ldl ife . Thi s ac tion re su lts from both 

th e Fed er al Po wer Act (sec . 18) and th e Wild life C oor di na tion A ct (P ub lic La w 

85 -6 24 ). Tho se pr ov isio ns by Con gress we re de sign ed to as su re th e Se rvice and 

S ta te ag en cy th e op p o rt u n it y to pr ov id e re co m m en dat io ns fo r pro te ct io n of fish 

an d wildl ife in co nn ec tio n w ith po wer d ev el op m en ts . The p re se nt bil l, as w ri tt en, 

co uld el im in at e ap plica tion of th e C oo rd in at io n Act an d se ct ion 18 of th e Fed er al 

Po wer Ac t. We co ns id er it hi gh ly de sira bl e to ha ve th e o p p o rt u n it y to review
16 EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS

and comment on projects over 100 horsepower. Accordingly, we believe the bill 

should contain provisions for review of such projects by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State fish and game agency. We fur the r believe tin t a 

proviso should be adde d to insure th at releva nt sections of the Federal Power 

Act are not waived where the Service or Sta te agency has a significant intere st 

in the project.

W. T. Shannon, Director.

T he New England Council for Economic Development,

Boston, Mass., Jun e 11, 1962.

Hon. Morgan M. Moulder,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications and Power, Interstate and Foreign

Commerce Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Represen tative Mould er: The New England Council strongly supports H.R. 6951 and urges its passage at this session of Congress.

The purpose of t he bill is to redefine a “sm all” water power project, for which 

simplified licensing procedures are available under the Federal Water Power Act 

(now pt. I of the Federal Power Act). As wr itte n in 1920, a “small” plant was 

defined to be one of 100-horsepower capa city. H.R . 6951 amends this definition 

to 2,000-horsepower capacity.

This is a ma tte r of particular interest to New England industries, which trad itionally have been built around small water power developments. Many of the 

original water power developments are now electrified, and may therefore be 

subject to the licensing provisions of the Federal Water Power Act. We estimate 

th at in New England there are approxim ately 170 small water power developments within the range of 100- to 2,000-horsepower capacity , to which this bill 

would apply.

In present-d ay term s, a power supply of less th an 2,000 horsepower (equivale nt 

to approximately 1,500 kilow atts of electricity) is insufficient to serve the needs 

of a major manufacturing establish ment, and is of only marginal value to an 

electric utility.

Extending the Federal Power Commission’s simplified licensing procedures to 

pla nts of this size would reduce a very sub stantial burden of regu latory work for 

the owners of these water power developments, and would similarly reduce an 

unnecessary burden of adm inistrative work for the Federal Power Commission 

and its staff. The substance of th is ame ndm ent has been repe ated ly urged by the 

Federal Power Commission und er both Democratic and Republican adm inistrations, and a companion bill, S. 1606, has already been passed by the Senate at 

this session.

It is apparen t th at no issue of national policy is involved, but merely updating 

a definition which has become outm oded by technological developments in the 

course of the past 40 years. It should be emphasized th at the bill does not 

exempt the se plan ts from the Federa l Power Commission’s jurisdic tion, b ut merely 

makes it possible for the Commission to process them on the basis of a simplified 

licensing procedure.

In view of the noncontroversial nature of the amendment, and the Sen ate’s 

prior action, we strongly urge favorable House action during the p resent session.

Sincerely yours,

Gardner A. Caverly.

[Federal Power Commission Release N o. 11,988]

FPC Advises Owners of Approximately 500 Unlicensed Hydroelectric

Power Projects of New Policies in Issuing Licenses for Developments

Built P rior to 1935

Washington, D.C., May 8, 1962.—The Federal Power Commission has sent 

letters to 196 owners or o pera tors of approximately 500 unlicensed hydroelectric 

power projec ts in 37 States asking them whether they propose to file applications 

for licenses.

The Commission on April 25 issued an opinion spelling out the policies it will 

follow in issuing licenses for non-Federal projects built prior to the 1935 amendments to the Federal Power Act which made i t unlawful to construct, operate, or 

mainta in hydroelectric project works on navigable waters of the United States 

withou t an FPC license or other Federal perm it.

The Commission’s letter said “If you are operatin g and m aintain ing a w ater 

power d evelopm ent withou t a valid Federal permit issued therefor prio r to June
EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS 17

10, 1920, and w ithout a lic ense iss ue d under t he Fed era l Po wer Ac t, it is r eq ues te d 

th a t yo u ad vi se th e Com mission w het her yo u pr op os e to file app lica tion fo r 

lic en se .”

T he F P C ’s April 25 Opinion No . 357 co nc lu de d th a t—

Pro je ct s buil t prior to 1935 and st ill opera ti ng w ithout lic ense sh ou ld not

be give n th e be ne fit of t h e m ax im um 50 -y ea r licenses all ow ed under th e F eder al Po wer Ac t, dati ng from tim e of issu an ce , aft er ne ar ly th re e de ca de s of 

un re gu la te d op er at io ns .

License s fo r th es e pr e-19 35 pro je ct s sh ou ld te rm in ate D ec em be r 31, 1993, 

or 50 ye ar s from th e tim e th e F P C ’s co nc ep t of nav ig ab ility wa s se tt le d in 

1943.

In fu rt ure cases not in vo lv in g a prior fin di ng o f na vi ga bi lity , unau th ori ze d 

co ns truc tion sin ce 1935, or oth er unusu al ci rc um stan ce s, th e 50 -y ea r license 

te rm fo r th es e pro je ct s will be co m pute d from 1943, w ith a te rm in ati on d ate 

of D ec em be r 31, 1993, an d an effecti ve d ate of Ap ril 1, 1962, re ga rd less of 

wh en file d. T he pro je ct s th u s will not be su bje ct to re tr oac ti ve annual 

ch arge s, which th e F P C sa id m ig ht “seriou sly d ete r” pote nti al ap pl ic at io ns.

The Com m ission ’s op inio n ca lle d fo r volu nta ry co op er at io n by ow ne rs of unlic en sed pro je ct s in co ming fo rw ar d w ith ap plica tion s. The F P C sa id th a t if its 

ex pe rie nc e duri ng th e ne xt 12 m on th s in dic at es th a t volu nta ry co op er at io n will 

not be fo rthc om in g, “ we m ay well wish to re co ns ider th e po sitio n we no w ta k e on 

th e qu es tion of back d ati n g .”

F ed er al P ow er C om mission , 

Wa shing ton , D.C., M ay 4, 1962 .

D oc ke t No. IT -5 50 1

Gen tlem en: Ther e ar e en clos ed fo r you r in fo rm at io n on e co py ea ch of th e 

Com m ission ’s April 25, 1962, (1) op inio n (N o. 357) and o rd er iss uin g a lice nse for 

co nst ru ct ed m aj or pro je ct No . 2288 to Pub lic Se rvice Co . of New H am ps hi re ; (2) 

or der issuin g a lic ense for const ru ct ed m aj or pro je ct No . 2287 to Pu blic Se rvi ce 

Co. of Ne w H am psh ir e; an d (3) pr es s release re la ting to th e o pini on and o rd er .

If yo u are oper at in g and m ain ta in in g a w at er po w er de ve lo pm en t w ithout a 

val id Fe de ra l p erm it issu ed th er ef or pr io r to Ju ne 10, 1920 , and w ithout a lic ense 

issu ed un de r th e Fed er al Po wer Ac t, it is re qu es te d th a t yo u ad vise th e Co mmissio n w he th er yo u prop os e to file ap pl ic at io n fo r license.

By dire ctio n of th e Co mmiss ion.

J os ep h H. G vtrid e, Secre tary.

D oc ke t N o. IT -5 501. I nv es tiga tion of Occ upan cy of Str ea ms Subje ct to

F ed er al J ur isdi ct io n

Mem oran du m to file s.— The att ach ed le tt er w ith en clo su res wa s se nt to th e 

follow ing:

New Yo rk:

C en tr al H ud so n Ga s & E le ct ric Corp., Sout h Roa d, Po ug hk ee ps ie, N.Y . 

R oc kl an d Lig ht & Po wer Co ., 10 N orth Bro ad w ay , Nya ck , N.Y .

N ia ga ra Moh aw k Po wer Cor p. , 300 Erie Bou le va rd W est, Sy racu se , N.Y . 

New York S ta te D ep art m en t of Pu bl ic W orks , S ta te Office Building, Alban y,

N.Y .

W es t Virg inia Pul p & P aper Co ., 230 P ark Ave nu e, New York 17, N.Y .

Fin ch P ru yn & Co ., In c. , Glen Fa lls , N.Y .

M or ea u M an ufa ct uri ng Cor p. , 126 S ta te Str ee t, Alban y, N.Y .

In te rn ati onal Pap er Co ., 200 E a st 42 d Str ee t, New’ Y ork, N.Y .

Ne w York S ta te E le ct ric & Ga s Corp., 108 E ast Green Stree t, It haca, N.Y . 

The W m. H. M in er Founda tion , ca re of H e a rt ’s D el ig ht Far m , P ark er D.

H url but, M an ag er , Cha zy , N.Y .

Pau l Sm iths Ele ct ric L ig ht & Po wer Co ., 2 M ain Stree t, Sar an ac Lak e, N.Y . 

V an ity F air P ap er Mills, P la tt sb urg h, N.Y .

New to n Fal ls P aper Mill, N ew to n Fa lls , N.Y .

D ex te r H ydr o Ele ct ric Corp., Post Office Box 15, D ex te r, N.Y .

Be ebe Is la nd Cor p., 748 Sta rb uck Av en ue , W at er to w n, N.Y .

W at ertow n M un ic ip al Ele ct ric D epart m ent, C ity Hall, W ate rto w’n, N.Y .

J. P. Lewis Co .. Bea ve r Fa lls , N.Y .

Osw ego Fa lls Corp., Fulton , N.Y .

Roc he ster Gas & Ele ct ric Corp., 89 E ast Av en ue , Roc he ster , N.Y .
18 EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS

Ind ian a & Michigan Electric Co., 2 Broadway, New York 8, N.Y.

Allegheny Power System Inc., 320 Park, N.Y.

Appalachian Power Co., 2 Broadway, Post Office Box 136, New York 8, N.Y. 

Board of Hudson River-Black River Regulating District, 11 North Pearl 

Stree t, Albany 7, N.Y.

Nekoosa Edwards Paper Co., Potsdam, N.Y.

Beaver River Power Co., Beaver Falls, N.Y.

Gould Paper Co., Lyons Falls, N.Y.

Connecticut:

The Connecticut Light & Power Co., Post Office Box 2010, Hartford, Conn. 

Ponemah Mills, Taftville, Conn.

Baltic Mills Co., 33 Railro ad Street, Baltic, Conn.

American Thread Co., 260 West Broadway, New York, N.Y.

Farmington River Power Co., 195 Lake Stree t, New Britain, Conn.

Collins Co., Collinsville, Conn.

The H artford Electric Light Co., Post Office Box 2370, Hartford, Conn. 

Ohio:

Bendix Corp., Fisher Building, Detroit 2, Mich.

Ohio Edison Co., 47 N orth Main Street, Akron, Ohio.

The Ohio Power Co., 2 Broadway, New York 8, N.Y.

The Toledo Edison Co., Madison at Superior Street, Toledo, Ohio.

Michigan:

The Detroit Edison Co., 2000 Second Avenue, Detroit, Mich.

Ford Motor Co., 3674 Shaefer Road, Dearborn, Mich.

Wolverine Power Co., 210 Phoenix Building, Bay City, Mich.

Consumers Power Co., 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson, Mich.

Alpena Power Co., 227 N orth Second Avenue, Alpena, Mich.

Carbide Power Co., 30 East 42d Stree t, New York, N.Y.

City of Norway, 915 Brown Street, Norway, Mich.

Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., 1460 Union Commerce Building, Cleveland, Ohio. 

City of Marquette Light & Power Department, Marquette , Mich.

Upper Peninsula Power Co., 616 Shelden Avenue, Houghton, Mich.

New Ham pshire:

Brown Co., Berlin, N.II.

Mine Falls Development, Nashua, N.H.

Suncook Mills, Suncook, N.H.

Min nesota:

Minnesota Power & Light Co., 30 West Superior Street, Duluth , Minn. 

Northw est Paper Co., Cloquet, Minn.

Otter Tail Power Co., 215 Cascade Street South, Fergus Falls, Minn. 

Minnesota Ontario Pap er Co., 500 Baker Arcade Building, Minneapolis, 

Minn.

City of Rochester, Rochester, Minn.

Northern States Power Co. (Minnesota), 15 South Fifth Street, Minneapolis, 

Minn.

General Mills, Inc., 9200 W ayzata Boulevard, Minneapolis 26, Minn.

St. Regis Paper Co., 150 E ast 42d Stre et, New York 17, N.Y.

Blandin Paper Co., Grand Rapid s, Mich.

Illinois:

Illinois Power Co., 500 So uth 27th Street, Decatur, Ill.

San itar y Distric t of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.

Sears Water Power Co., 114^ West 17th Stree t, Rock Island, Ill. 

Commonwealth Edison Co., 72 West Adams Street, Chicago, Ill.

Iowa:

Inter sta te Power Co., 1000 Main Street, Dubuque, Iowa.

Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Co., 206 Eas t Second Stre et, Davenpo rt, Iowa. 

Maine:

Maine Public Service Co., 209 State Stree t, Presque Isle, Maine.

St. Croix Paper Co., Woodland, Maine.

Bangor Hydro Electric Co., 33 S tate Street, Bangor, Maine.

Great Northe rn Paper Co., 6 S tate Stree t, Bangor, Maine.

Bates Manufacturing Co., 9 Greene Stree t, Augusta, Maine.

Cen tral Maine Power Co., 9 Greene Street, Augusta, Maine.

Scott Paper Co., Chester, Pa.

Rumford Falls Power Co., 49 Congress Street, Rumford, Maine.

S. D. Warren Co., 89 Broad Street, Boston, Mass.

Milstar Man ufacturing Corp., Bridge and Water Streets, Waterville, Maine 

Kennebec River Pulp & Pap er Co., Anson, Maine.

Powdrell & Alexander, Inc., Lewiston, Maine.
EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS 19

No rth Carolina:

Rocky Mount Mills, Rocky Mount, N.C.

City of Durham , Durham , N.C.

Carolina Power & Light Co., Box 1551, Raleigh, N.C.

Sellers Man ufacturing Co., Saxapahaw, N.C.

Burlington Industries, Inc., High Shoals, N.C.

Duke Power Co., Box 2178, Charlotte, N.C.

Carolina Mou ntain Power Co., 100 West 10th Street, Wilmington, Del. 

Sou th Carolina:

Startex Mill, Startex, S.C.

Union Man ufac turing & Power Co., Union, S.C.

Pacolet Man ufacturing Co., Pacolet, S.C.

Clifton Manufac turing Co., Clifton, S.C.

Riegel Textile Co., 260 Madison Avenue, New York 16. N.Y.

Belton Light & Power Co., 310 Main Street, Belton, S.C.

Pied mont Manufac turing Co., Piedmont, S.C.

Abbeville Water & Electric Plant, Abbeville, S.C.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., 328 Main Street, Columbia, S.C.

Georgia:

Graniteville Co., Graniteville, S.C.

Georgia Power Co., Post Office Box 4545, Atlanta 2, Ga.

Bibb Man ufac turing Co., 235 Main Street, Macon, Ga.

Eagle & Phenix Mills, Columbus, Ga.

Habersham Mills, Habersham, Ga.

Florida:

Florida Power Corp., 101 South Fifth Street, St. Petersburg, Fla.

Alaba ma:

Mou nt Vernon Mills, Mercantile Trust Building, Baltim ore, Md.

Alabama Power Co., 600 N orth 18th Stre et, Birmingham 2, Ala.

Ind iana:

Public Service Co. of Indiana, 1000 East Main Stre et, Plainfield, Ind. 

Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 5265 Ho hman Avenue, Hammond, Ind.

Massachusetts:

Merrim ack Man ufacturing Co., Lowell, Mass.

Lowell Ind ustrial Deve lopment Co., 95 Bridge Street, Lowell, Mass.

Pacific Mills, 140 Federal Street, Boston, Mass.

Boott Mills, Joh n Street, Lowell, Mass.

St. Regis Pap er Co., 150 East 42d Stree t, New York 17, N.Y.

Metropo litan District Commission, 20 Som erset Street, Boston, Mass. 

Western Massachusetts Electric Co., 174 Brush Hill Avenue, West Springfield, Mass.

Ludlow Man ufacturing Co., Ludlow, Mass.

New England Power Service Co., 441 Stua rt Street, Boston 16, Mass. 

Penobscot Chemical Fibre Co., 211 Congress Stree t, Boston 10, Mass. 

Holyoke Gas & Electric Dep artm ent, Holyoke, Mass.

Standa rd Packaging Corp., Foot, Jackson Street, Holyoke, Mass.

American Writing Paper Corp., Holyoke, Mass.

Strathm ore Pap er Co., Main Street, Woronoco, Mass.

Rhode Island:

City of Providence, City Hall, Providence, R.I.

Tup per Corp., North Springfield, R.I.

New Jersey:

City of Paterson, City Hall, Paterson, N.J.

Passaic Valley Water Commission, 137 Ellison Stree t, Paterson, N.J. 

Vermont:

Gilman Pap er Co., 630 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y.

Village of Swanton, 13 York Street, Swanton, Vt.

Missisquoi Corp., Sheldon Springs, Vt.

Cen tral Vermont Public Service Corp., 77 Grove Street, Rutland, Vt.

Village of Morrisville, 16 Por tland Street, Morrisville, Vt.

Green Mountain Power Corp., 1 Main Street, Burlington, Vt.

Vermont Marble Co., 61 Main Street, Proc tor, Vt.

Pennsylvan ia:

Na nta hala Power & Light Co., 1501 Alcoa Building, Pittsbu rgh , Pa. 

Pennsylvan ia Electric Co., 222 Levergood Street, John stow n, Pa.
20 EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS

West Virginia:

Potom ac Light & Power Co., 200 E ast Patrick Stree t, Frederick, Md.

Union Carbide Corp., 270 P ark Avenue, New York 17, N.Y.

Virginia:

Northern Virginia Power Co., 55 E ast Washington Stree t, Hagersto wn, Md. 

Virginia Electric & Power Co., 700 East Fran klin Street, Richmond, Va. 

Allied Chemical & Dye Co., 61 Broadway, New York, N.Y.

Richmond Department of Public Utilities, Richmond, Va.

Danville Water, Gas & Electric Departme nt, City of Danville, Danville, Va. 

Dan River Mills, Inc., Danville, Va.

Washington Mills Co., Mayodan, N.C.

Texas:

City of Austin, City Hall, Austin, Tex.

Texas Hyd ro Electric Corp., 114 North Austin Street, Seguin, Tex.

Texas Power Corp., Post Office Box 587, Seguin, Tex.

Central Power & Light Co., Box 2121, Corpus Christi, Tex.

Arizona:

Salt River Project Agricultural Improveme nt District, Second Avenue and 

Van Buren Street, Phoenix, Ariz.

Idaho:

Idaho Power Co., 1220 Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho.

City of Idaho Falls, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Fall River Rural Electric Coop., Ashton, Idaho.

Oregon:

Pacific Power & Light Co., 920 Southwest Sixth Avenue, Portlan d, Oreg. 

Portlan d General Electric Co., 621 Southwest Alder Stree t, Portlan d, Oreg. 

City of Eugene, Post Office Box 1112, Eugene, Oreg.

Missouri:

Sho Me Power Corp., Marshfield, Mo.

Missouri Public Service Co., Kansas City 38, Mo.

Union Electric Co., Post Office Box 149, St. Louis, 66, Mo.

The Empire District Electric Co., 602 Joplin Street, Joplin, Mo.

Neb raska:

Nebrask a Public Power System, Columbus, Nebr.

Consumers Public Power District, Columbus, Nebr.

Colorado:

Public Service Co. of Colorado, 550 15th Street, Denver, Colo.

City of Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, Colo.

Western Power & Gas Co., 144 South 12th Stree t, Lincoln, Nebr.

South Da kot a:

Black Hills Power & Light Co., 621 Sixth Stree t, Rapid City, S. Dak. 

Montana:

The Mon tana Power Co., 40 East Broadway, Butte, Mont.

Montana Power & Light Co., Troy, Mont.

Kansas: Bowersock Mills <fc Power Co., 546 Massach usetts Avenue, Lawrence, 

Kans.

California:

Imperial Irrigation District, Imperial, Calif.

Los Angeles Depar tment of Water and Power, Box 3669 Terminal Annex, 

Los Angeles, Calif.

California Electric Power Co., 2885 Foothill Boulevard, San Bernardino, 

Calif.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 245 M arket Street, San Francisco, Calif. 

Turlock-Modesto Irrigation District, Modesto, Calif.

San Francisco Utilities Commission, City Hall, San Francisco, Calif. 

Southern California Edison Co., 601 W est Fifth Street, Los Angeles 53, Calif.

Nevada:

Sierra Pacific Power Co., 21 East First Stree t, Reno, Nev.

Truckee Carson Irrigation District, 152 North Main Street, Fallon, Nev.

Utah:

Utah Power & Light Co., Post Office Box 899, Salt Lake City 10, Utah. 

City of Murray , 5471 South Sta te Street, Murray 7, Utah.
EXEMPTION OF SMALL HYDROELECTR IC POWER PROJECTS 21

Wisconsin:

Kau kau na Electric Water De par tment, 101 Main Avenue, Kaukaun a, Wis. 

Kimberly Clark Corp, Neenah, Wis.

Wisconsin Public Service Corp., Post Office Box 420, Oshkosh, Wis. 

Wisconsin Michigan Power Co., 807 So uth Oneida, Appleton, Wis.

Wisconsin Power & Light Co., 122 West Was hington Avenue, Madison, Wis. 

Nekoosa Edwards Paper Co., Port Edwards, Wis.

Northern States Power Co. (Wisconsin), Eau Claire, Wis.

Cornell Wood Products Co., Cornell, Wis.

Dairyland Power Co-op., 2615 E ast Avenue South, La Crosse, Wis.

Lake Superior Distric t Power Co., 101 West Second Street, Ashland, Wis. 

Kansas City Sta r Co., Kansas City, Mo.

Washington:

Superior Por tlan d Cement Co., Seaboard Building, Seattle, Wash.

Seattle De partm ent of Lighting, Seattle, Wash.

Puget Sound Power & Light Co., Post Office Box 38, Seattle 71, Wash. 

Tacoma Depar tment of Public Utilities, Tacoma, Wash.

Crown Zellerbach Corp., Camas, Wash.

Wapato Irrigation District, Wapato, Wash.

Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1, Wenatchee, Wash.

Okanogan Cou nty Public Utility Dis trict No. 1, Okanogan, Wash.

The Washington Water Power Co., 825 Trent Avenue West, Spokane 6,

Wash.

City of Spokane Water Division, Spokane, Wash.

South Carolina (ad dition ):

Lockhart Power Co., Lockhart, S.C.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. The subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

(Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

o