## Facts

- Southern California Edison Co. (Edison) operated an electric utility system in California and sold electric energy to California customers, including municipal purchasers.
- The City of Colton purchased all of its electric power requirements from Edison, used some for municipal purposes, and resold most of it to local residential, commercial, and industrial customers.
- Some electricity sold through Edison’s system originated outside California, including energy generated at Hoover Dam (Nevada) and other federal projects tied into Edison’s interconnected transmission system.
- For years, the California Public Utilities Commission regulated the Edison–Colton rate.
- In 1958, at Colton’s request, the Federal Power Commission (FPC) asserted jurisdiction over the Edison–Colton sale under § 201(b) of the Federal Power Act as a wholesale sale in interstate commerce.
- The Ninth Circuit set aside the FPC order, reasoning that (i) the power was consumed wholly within California, (ii) § 201(a) indicates federal regulation should extend only to matters not subject to state regulation, and (iii) certain upstream federal-project sales were regulated by the Secretary of the Interior.
- The Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the FPC had jurisdiction under § 201(b) of the Federal Power Act over Edison’s wholesale sale of electricity to Colton as a sale “in interstate commerce,” even though Colton’s resale and consumption occurred wholly within California.
2. Whether § 201(a)’s general policy statement limits the specific jurisdictional grant in § 201(b) and permits state regulation of the Edison–Colton rate.
3. Whether § 6 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, assigning certain rate authority to the Secretary of the Interior, exempts Hoover-related power sales from FPC jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and upheld the FPC’s assertion of jurisdiction.
- The Court held that § 201(b) grants the FPC plenary authority over all wholesale sales of electric energy in interstate commerce unless expressly exempted by the Federal Power Act.
- The Court rejected a case-by-case approach based on whether state regulation would sufficiently protect national interests.
- The Court held that § 201(a)’s policy declaration cannot nullify or narrow the specific grant of jurisdiction in § 201(b).
- The Court concluded that earlier statutory rate-allocation language in § 6 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act was superseded to the extent inconsistent with Part II of the Federal Power Act; Hoover Dam power sales were not categorically exempt from FPC regulation.

## Legal Principles

- Federal jurisdiction under Federal Power Act § 201(b) extends broadly to wholesale sales of electric energy in interstate commerce, unless the statute expressly provides an exemption.
- The interstate character of the transaction turns on the interstate flow and integration of power within an interconnected system, not solely on the location of ultimate consumption.
- A general policy clause (Federal Power Act § 201(a)) does not override or restrict a specific jurisdictional command (Federal Power Act § 201(b)).
- Earlier statutory provisions allocating rate authority (including Boulder Canyon Project Act § 6) may be displaced where a later, comprehensive federal regulatory scheme covers the same subject matter.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the FPC had exclusive federal authority under § 201(b) to regulate Edison’s wholesale sale to Colton because the sale involved interstate commerce, and neither § 201(a)’s policy language nor the Boulder Canyon Project Act displaced the Federal Power Act’s specific jurisdictional grant.


Fed. Power Comm’n v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 376 U.S. 205 (1964)