Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Alcoa, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Administration
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 16, 2012No. 10-70211, 10-70707, 10-70743, 10-70782, 10-70813, 10-70843Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBea, Circuit Judge
I agree with the panel’s judgment denying the petitions as to the First Period of the contract between the Bonneville Power Authority (“BPA”) and the Aluminum Company of America (“Alcoa”), as extended by the parties. I dissent, however, from the panel’s judgment dismissing the petitions seeking to invalidate the contract’s Second Period because I find Petitioners have standing to press their claims, and that their claims are valid, as far as they are based on BPA’s statutory duty to charge Alcoa the IP rate. See Maj. Op. Part IV. We should grant the petition as to the Second Period of BPA’s…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. Michael JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Alaska Center for the Environment Alaska Wildlife Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service John C. Dorio, District Ranger, Chugach National ForestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Miranda B. v. KitzhaberCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.