ELR Citation: ELR 21195
No(s). 95-1171 (D.C. Cir. Jun 17, 1997)

The court holds that Federal Power Act (FPA) §4(e)'s "mandatory conditions" requirement for hydropower projects on federal reservations applies to license applications for existing projects whose licenses have expired, and that §4(e) conditions may relate to purposes beyond those originally conceived for the reservation. The court first holds that the FPA's text, structure, and legislative history demonstrate that Congress did not address whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) authority to require §4(e) conditions extends to applications for existing projects. The court then holds that FERC's imposition of the mandatory conditions on applications for existing projects is reasonable. The court next holds that FERC did not act improperly by imposing conditions on petitioner's hydroelectric project that went beyond protecting the original purposes of the federal reservations in the project is located. The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management looked beyond the reservations' original purposes of watershed protection and timber production and considered wildlife protection, promotion of recreational opportunities, and other activities. The FPA unambiguously permits agencies to rely on a broader group of purposes. The court then upholds the conditions that FERC imposed, because they are reasonably necessary for the land administering departments to meet their responsibility to assure the adequate protection and utilization of the lands under their supervision.

Counsel for Petitioner
Nino J. Mascolo
Southern California Edison Company
2244 Walnutgrove Ave., Rosemead CA 91770
(626) 302-1212

Counsel for Respondent
Samuel Soopper
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
825 N. Capitol St. NE, Washington DC 20426
(202) 208-0200