16 U.S.C. § 837a
Limitation of sale, delivery, and exchange of electric energy and electric peaking capacity for use outside Pacific Northwest to surplus energy and surplus peaking capacity; notice to customers; inspection of contract drafts
Subject to the provisions of this chapter, the sale, delivery, and exchange of electric energy generated at, and peaking capacity of, Federal hydroelectric plants in the Pacific Northwest for use outside the Pacific Northwest shall be limited to surplus energy and surplus peaking capacity. At least 30 days prior to the execution of any contract for the sale, delivery, or exchange of surplus energy or surplus peaking capacity for use outside the Pacific Northwest, the Secretary shall give the then customers of the Bonneville Power Administration written notice that negotiations for such a contract are pending, and thereafter, at any customer’s request, make available for its inspection current drafts of the proposed contract.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1985–2005 · leading case: Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles v. Bonneville Power Administration
Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles v. Bonneville Power Administration (1985)
“In the sale of both firm and nonfirm power, BPA is statutorily required to give priority to purchasers within the Northwest, 16 U.S.C. § 837a, and to public bodies and cooperatives, 16 U.”
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. United States (1991)
“) 16 U.S.C. §§ 837a, 837b. It also provides that BPA can sell outside the Pacific Northwest only surplus energy and surplus peaking capacity.”
City of Burbank, California v. United States (2001)
“It must do so, however, pursuant to the authorization and restrictions codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 837a, and 839c(f). Thus, when the BPA agrees to sell electric energy to an entity outside the Pacific Northwest, such as Burbank, some of the contractual provisions are mandated by…”
Southern California Edison v. United States (2005)
“16 U.S.C. §§ 837a, 839c(f); Def.’s Mot. at 4-5.”
Aluminum Co. of America v. Bonneville Power Administration (1989)
“The primary marketing area is the Pacific Northwest, comprised of the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; Montana west of the Continental Divide; and the parts of Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada that are within the Columbia River drainage.”
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonneville Power Administration (2001)
“(citing 16 U.S.C. § 837a). “Surplus energy” is defined as “electric energy generated at Federal hydroelectric plants in the Pacific Northwest which would otherwise be wasted because of the lack of a market therefore in the Pacific Northwest at any established rate.”
California Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission v. Johnson (1986)
“16 U.S.C. § 837a.) Section 42(c) is allegedly unlawful “because BPA does not possess authority to commit itself to ignore new Congressional directions as they may appear in amendments to federal statutes.”
Aluminum Co. of America v. Bonneville Power Administration (1989)
“16 U.S.C. § 837a (1982). This energy is referred to as “nonfirm” energy, to distinguish it from the “firm” energy that BPA is required to provide to its Pacific Northwest customers first, pursuant to the Pacific Northwest Consumer Power Preference Act of 1964 (the Regional…”
California Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission v. Bonneville Power Administration (1987)
“Sales to purchasers outside the Northwest are limited to surplus energy, or energy “which would otherwise be wasted because of the lack of a market therefor in the Pacific Northwest at any established rate.”
Conservation v. Johnson (1986)
“16 U.S.C. § 837a.) Section 42(c) is allegedly unlawful “because BPA does not possess authority to commit itself to ignore new Congressional directions as they may appear in amendments to federal statutes.”
Central Montana Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration (1988)
“16 U.S.C. § 837a. A limited exception, however, was specifically preserved for "the geographical preference of power users in the State of Montana which is established by the Hungry Horse Dam Act.”
Overton Power District No. 5 v. O'Leary (1996)
“Compare 16 U.S.C. § 837a (general preference for BPA power to be sold in Pacific Northwest) and 16 U.”
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.