APPENDIX D

DECISION AFFECTING ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT

OPINION OF JESSE C. ADKINS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, RENDERED JANUARY 29, 1931

Plaintiff, the Clarion River Power Co., brought this suit in October, 1930, against the then members of the Federal Power Commission to restrain them from conducting in their official capacity a hearing to ascertain the original cost and net investment of plaintiff in a water power project on the Clarion River, in the State of Pennsylvania, known as the Piney project, and constructed under a license issued by the commission.

Plaintiff moved for a temporary injunction to restrain the holding of the hearing pending the suit, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint. The principal ground of defendant's motion is that the Federal Power Commission is authorized by law to hold the hearing in question. The case depends upon the construction to be given to the act of June 10, 1920 (41 Stats. 1065), commonly known as the Federal water power act.

Facts

On October 13, 1922 the commission issued a 50-year license to plaintiff Clarion Water Power Co. to construct and maintain a water power development on the Clarion River, known as the Piney project, to be commenced by June 1, 1923, and completed by September 1, 1927. The project was completed within the time limit.

Section 4(a) of the act provides that in order to aid the commission in determining the net investment of the licensee in any project the licensee shall upon oath, within a reasonable time after construction of the original project, or any addition, or betterment, file with the commission a statement, in duplicate, showing the actual legitimate cost of such project, addition, or betterment.

The same section also provides that the licensee shall grant to the commission or its agents free access to all books, records, papers, and documents relating to the project. The license to plaintiff contained a number of other conditions hereafter to be mentioned.

On April 11, 1930, plaintiff filed with the commission its statement, in duplicate, as required by section 4(a). Plaintiff alleges that this statement shows the actual legitimate cost of the construction of the project to be $11,032,816.57.

By section 4(h) of the statute the commission is authorized to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for the purpose of carrying out the act.

The license stipulates that it is subject to all the terms and conditions of the act and of the rules and regulations of the commission pursuant thereto in force on June 6, 1922. Regulation 20, section 6, in force on that day, provides that