Legal Opinion

California Energy Commission v. Bonneville Power Administration

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided July 26, 1990No. Nos. 88-7280, 88-7315, 88-7318 and 88-7319PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

CANBY, Circuit Judge:

This case involves consolidated challenges to the Bonneville Power Administration’s (“BPA”) Long-Term Intertie Access Policy (“LTIAP”) which allocates access to the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie, a system of high voltage lines transmitting federal and non-federal power between the two regions. The LTIAP is being attacked on several fronts by parties with diverse and sometimes competing interests. None of the parties with an interest in access to the Intertie is completely satisfied with the policy. Upon the whole record, however, we conclude that the LTIAP…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
  5. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. 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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API