U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 12F— PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSUMER POWER PREFERENCE; RECIPROCAL PRIORITY IN OTHER REGIONS

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

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

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: Dep't of Water & Power of the City of Los Angeles v. Bonneville Power Admin., 759 F.2d 684 (9th Cir. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dep't of Water & Power of the City of Los Angeles v. Bonneville Power Admin., 759 F.2d 684 (9th Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “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, 23 Cl. Ct. 46 (Ct. Cl. 1991). · cites it 3× “) 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, 273 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 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…”
S. California Edison v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 66 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “16 U.S.C. §§ 837a, 839c(f); Def.’s Mot. at 4-5.”
Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 903 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 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 & Chem. Corp. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 261 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “(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 & Dev. Comm'n v. Johnson, 807 F.2d 1456 (9th Cir. 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 Am. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 891 F.2d 748 (9th Cir. 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 & Dev. Comm'n v. Bonneville Power Admin., 831 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 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, 783 F.2d 858 (9th Cir. 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.”
Cent. Montana Elec. Power Coop., Inc. v. Adm'r of the Bonneville Power Admin., 840 F.2d 1472 (9th Cir. 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 Dist. No. 5 v. O'Leary, 73 F.3d 253 (9th Cir. 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.