Opinion ID: 410976
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Commission's Jurisdiction.

Text: 42 The Commission is authorized and empowered under the FPA to issue licenses 43 for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining dams, water conduits, reservoirs, power houses, transmission lines, or other project works necessary or convenient ... for the development, transmission, and utilization of power across, along, from, or in any of the streams or the bodies of water over which Congress has jurisdiction under its authority to regulate commerce. 44 Section 4(e) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 797(e) (1976). At the same time, the FPA makes it unlawful for any person, State, or municipality, for the purpose of developing electric power, to construct, operate, or maintain any dam, water conduit, reservoir, power house, or other works incidental thereto ... except under ... a license granted pursuant to this chapter. Section 23(b) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 817 (1976). The Bands and Interior contend that under these provisions the Commission's licensing authority extends only to projects the purpose of which is the development of electric power. They contend that Project No. 176 is not such a project. Alternatively, they contend that the Commission's jurisdiction extends only to power components of projects with a primary purpose of diverting water, and with a secondary or incidental purpose of developing electric power. 45 The starting point for analysis is the observation that the primary purpose of Project No. 176 is not the development of power. The ALJ found that the project's predominant and clearly defined purpose is irrigation, not power production. The Commission agreed, stating that the principal function ... is to convey water, Opinion 36 at 95, and that [t]he generation of electric power is and always has been incidental to the primary purpose of the project, Opinion 36-A at 27. Indeed, the ALJ found that the horsepower generated by the project is not even the equivalent to that produced by half a dozen modern automobiles, and concluded, in determining that the Commission was without jurisdiction to license the project, that the production of power ... can only be termed de minimis ... especially in light of the miniscule amount of power produced, both in absolute terms and relative to other projects. 46 Interior and the Bands do not contend that power generation must be the primary purpose of the project for the Commission to have jurisdiction. Such a contention would be wholly at odds with precedent. Rather, they contend that in this case the power generation aspect of the project is pure makeweight--that it is only included for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Commission. 47 The Commission did not reach this question, relying instead on a very expansive reading of sections 4(e) and 23(b) of the FPA: 48 So long as any part of a project is situated on navigable waters, or on public lands or reservations, and so long as that project generates any electric power, however minor in amount and however insignificant to the project as a whole, and so long as interstate or foreign commerce is affected, the works of that project are subject to be licensed and required to be licensed under the Federal Power Act. 49 Opinion No. 36, at 37-39 (footnotes omitted). 50 We are required to give great deference to interpretations by administrative agencies of the statutes they are required to administer. Investment Co. Institute v. Camp, 401 U.S. 617, 626-27, 91 S.Ct. 1091, 1096-1097, 28 L.Ed.2d 367 (1971); Sierra Club v. Andrus, 610 F.2d 581, 602 (9th Cir. 1979), reversed on other grounds, 451 U.S. 287, 101 S.Ct. 1775, 68 L.Ed.2d 101 (1981). This principle applies to an agency interpretation of the scope of its authorizing statute. Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 345, 75 S.Ct. 790, 797, 99 L.Ed. 1129 (1955); Tennessee Valley Ham Co. v. Bergland, 493 F.Supp. 1007, 1010 (W.D.Tenn.1980). The question before us, therefore, is whether the interpretation of section 4(e) put forth by the Commission is a reasonable one. 51 The FPA empowers the Commission to license projects for the development, transmission and utilization of power, section 4(e) of the FPA, and requires licenses to be obtained by persons who construct, operate, or maintain facilities for the purpose of developing electric power, section 23(b) of the FPA. No explicit language in the FPA limits the Commission's jurisdiction to projects where the primary, or a major, or significant, or non-de minimis purpose is to generate power. Thus, the broad interpretation advanced by the Commission is not inconsistent with the plain language of the statute, even though that language might equally well have been subject to a narrower interpretation. 52 Nor did the Commission, by applying its broad interpretation of the jurisdictional statute to the facts of this case, act so unreasonably as to require reversal. This case, unlike one that might someday arise, does not squarely present the question whether the Commission could properly apply its broad jurisdictional formula to a case where the power elements of the project were included as mere sham and makeweight. There was no such finding in this case, and we decline to make one ourselves at this stage of the proceedings. It suffices merely to note that there must be some point beyond which the mere presence of a power generating element in a much larger project aimed at a different goal could not reasonably be thought to confer jurisdiction on the Commission over the whole project. Where such a line ought to be drawn, in the first instance, is a question for the Commission rather than for this court. We are not persuaded at this point in the proceedings that the line has been crossed in this case, and we therefore decline to overturn the Commission's assertion of jurisdiction. 53 Interior and the Bands also assert that at any rate the Commission's jurisdiction is limited to the power components of the project. We find no error in the Commission's conclusion, supported by the findings of the A.L.J., that all of the licensed facilities are physical structures which are used and useful in connection with the power elements of the project, and therefore within the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction. See section 3(11) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 796(11) (1976). 54