16 U.S.C. § 832f

Elements in determining rates

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the intent of Congress that rate schedules for the sale of electric energy which is or may be generated at the Bonneville project in excess of the amount required for operating the dam, locks, and appurtenant works at said project shall be determined with due regard to and predicated upon the fact that such electric energy is developed from water power created as an incident to the construction of the dam in the Columbia River at the Bonneville project for the purposes set forth in section 832 of this title. Rate schedules shall be drawn having regard to the recovery (upon the basis of the application of such rate schedules to the capacity of the electric facilities of Bonneville project) of the cost of producing and transmitting such electric energy, including the amortization of the capital investment over a reasonable period of years. Rate schedules shall be based upon an allocation of costs made by the Secretary of Energy. In computing the cost of electric energy developed from water power created as an incident to and a byproduct of the construction of the Bonneville project, the Secretary of Energy may allocate to the costs of electric facilities such a share of the cost of facilities having joint value for the production of electric energy and other purposes as the power development may fairly bear as compared with such other purposes.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1980–1989 · leading case: Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles v. Bonneville Power Administration

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles v. Bonneville Power Administration (1985) ca9 “See 16 U.S.C. § 832f (BPA rate schedules designed to recover BPA costs) H.”

Pacific Power & Light Co. v. Duncan (1980) ord · cites it 2× “In addition, the Secretary delegated his authority to the FERC “to exercise the cost allocation authority contained in Section 7 of the Bonneville Project Act [16 U.S.C. § 832f].” Id. ¶ 2.”

Central Lincoln Peoples' Utility District v. Johnson (1984) ca9 · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 832f (Bonneville Project Act); 16 U.”

Aluminum Co. of America v. Bonneville Power Administration (1989) ca9 “16 U.S.C. §§ 832f, 838g, 839e(a)(l) (1982).”

CP National Corp. v. Jura (1989) ca9 “See also Bonneville Project Act of 1937, 16 U.S.C. § 832f (1982) (“[rjate schedules shall be drawn having regard to the recovery .”

Utility Reform Project v. Bonneville Power Administration (1989) ca9 “” 16 U.S.C. § 832f. These procedures would not serve the purpose for which they were designed if they were required to be applied to this exchange.”

Aluminum Co. of America v. Bonneville Power Administration (1989) ca9 “16 U.S.C. §§ 832f, 838g, 839e(a)(l) (1982).”

California Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission v. Bonneville Power Administration (1987) ca9 “3 This need to consider the interests of preserving competition, however, does not override BPA’s statutory obligations, repeatedly expressed in 16 U.S.C. §§ 832f, 838g, and 839e(a)(l), to be fiscally self-supporting.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.