Summary

Byron White Federal Power Commission v. Union Electric Company…

The answer to this conundrum is that unlike Part II of Title II of the Public Utility Act of 1935, under which the Commission regulates various aspects of the sale and transmission of energy in interstate commerce, Part I, the original Federal Water Power Act, is concerned with the utilization of water resources and particularly the power potential in water. In relation to this central concern of the Act, [29] the distinction between a hydroelectric project and a steam plant is obvious, and meaningful, although both produce energy for interstate transmission.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White Federal Power Commission v. Union Electric Company…

Persons intending to construct a project which would likely have no such effect, such as some pure pumped storage installations, could decline to file a declaration of intention with impunity. Thus the 1935 amendment made a difference principally in regard to projects which predictably have little, if any, effect on navigation but a significant effect on interstate commerce.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White Federal Power Commission v. Union Electric Company…

We cannot distill as much as Union does from the long and intense legislative struggle to enact what was a decided innovation in federal policy. The Act unquestionably involved an invocation of the congressional power over navigation under the Commerce Clause, since it required a license to build any water power project on a navigable stream, broadly defined, [18] regardless of any actual effect on navigation.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature