Legal Opinion
Aluminum Co. of America v. Bonneville Power Administration
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 11, 1989No. Nos. 87-7303, 87-7308 and 87-7313PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEAVY, Circuit Judge:
OVERVIEW
These consolidated cases challenge the first nonfirm energy rates that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) established, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved, under section 7(k) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (the Regional Act), 16 U.S.C. § 839e(k) (1982).1 Nonfirm energy is that energy that is surplus to the needs of the Pacific Northwest. The challenged rates, schedules NF-1 and NF-2, were effective from July 1, 1981, through September 30, 1982, and from October 1, 1982, through October 31,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Sierra Club v. MortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Morton v. RuizSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- California Energy Commission v. Bonneville Power AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- California Energy Commission, Puget Sound Power & Light Company, Washington Water Power Company ("Wwp"), Petitioner-Intervenor v. Bonneville Power Administration U.S. Department of Energy, Association of Public Agency Customers Public Power Council Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington Pacificorp, Dba Pacific Power & Light Company ("Pacific") Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington Western Public Agencies Group ("Wpag") Montana Power Company City of Seattle, City Light Department ("City") Public Generating Pool ("Pgp") Eugene Water & Electric Board ("Eweb") Director Service Industrial Customers ("Dsis"), Respondent-Intervenor. Pacific Northwest Generating Company ("Pngc") v. Bonneville Power Administration U.S. Department of Energy United States of America, Vanalco Inc. Aluminum Company of America Columbia Falls Aluminum Company, Washington Water Power Company ("Wwp") Puget Sound Power and Light Company, Petitioner-Intervenor v. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland General Electric Company Association of Public Agency Customers Arco Montana Power Company Public Generating Pool ("Pgp") Eugene Water & Electric Board ("Eweb") Non-Generating Public Utilities ("Ngpu"), Respondent-Intervenor. California Public Utilities Commission, Puget Sound Power and Light Company the Department of Water & Power of the City of Los Angeles Public Service Department of the City of Burbank Public Service Department of the City of Glendale Water & Power Department of the City of Pasadena San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Petitioner-Intervenor v. Bonneville Power Administration U.S. Department of Energy, Pacific Power & Light Company Eugene Water & Electric Board ("Eweb") Public Generating Pool ("Pgp") Northwest Power Planning Council Direct Service Industrial Customers ("Dsis"), Respondent-IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Aluminum Company of America Arco Metals Company Columbia Falls Aluminum Company, Association of Public Agency Customers, Petitioner-Intervenor v. Bonneville Power Administration Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Portland General Electric Company Puget Sound Power & Light Company Public Generating Pool (Pgp), Respondents-Intervenors. California Energy Commission v. Bonneville Power Administration Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Southern California Edison Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Diego Gas & Electric Company Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles v. Bonneville Power Administration Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989