Court Opinion

ID: 9445130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:20:16.119093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:07.963688
License: Public Domain

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
Plaintiffs contend in their brief that there is here involved an integrated complex single interstate operation, and that the exclusive jurisdiction over interstate activities rests in the Federal Power Commission. If this be true, there was no occasion for plaintiffs to ask a United States district court to take jurisdiction. Under the Federal Power Act, the commission, as an administrative agency of the federal government, has power to determine the coverage of the act. Federal Power Commission v. Arizona Edison Co., 9 Cir., 194 F.2d 679, 683.3 The court there said:
“To hold otherwise would result in piecemeal administration of the Act, burdensome delays in giving effect to congressional intent and might deprive the courts of the informed judgment of the Commission on so fundamental a question. The Connecticut Light & Power decision [Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 324 U. S. 515, 65 S.Ct. 749, 89 L.Ed. 1150] recognized the Commission’s power in this respect by remanding the case to the Commission with a requirement that appropriate jurisdictional findings be made. Numerous cases have affirmed Commission orders determining status derived from proceedings initiated in a manner similar to the one before us.”
The entertainment of a declaratory judgment proceeding by the district court for the purpose of determining the status of an operation such as that involved in this case would be inconsistent with the plan of the Federal Power act.

. That was an action brought by the commission in a district court to secure enforcement of its order finding a utility company subject to its jurisdiction and directing the company to comply with outstanding regulations of the commission.