Notes of Decisions
Energy Nw. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 531 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
“16 U.S.C. § 839d(j). Plaintiff did not reduce its claim to account for costs “already reimbursed” by BPA and the failure *554 to account for reimbursement by another entity constitutes “a failure of proof.”
Avista Corp. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 380 F. App'x 652 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 3× “” 16 U.S.C. § 839d(e)(l). Here the BPA has reasonably concluded, supported by a lengthy administrative record, that seeking waivers of requests for billing credits from its customers is consistent with its tiered-rate approach to maximizing conservation efforts.”
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 46 (Ct. Cl. 1991).
“This Act granted BPA authority to acquire additional power resources, 16 U.S.C. § 839d, and to initiate measures designed to conserve electricity in the Pacific Northwest.”
Util. Reform Proj. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 869 F.2d 437 (9th Cir. 1989).
· cites it 5× “16 U.S.C. § 839d(c). If BPA decides to restart construction of WNP-3, it will acquire the IOUs’ shares of project capability and reimburse them for their costs to complete the project.”
California Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Comm'n v. Johnson, 807 F.2d 1456 (9th Cir. 1986).
· cites it 2× “§ 839e(i), by establishing a rate without conforming to the prescribed rate-making procedures; (3) that power sales contract general provision 8(f) violates section 7(i) by establishing a method of cost allocation without conforming to the prescribed procedures; and (4) that…”
Cent. Lincoln Peoples' Util. Dist. v. Johnson, 735 F.2d 1101 (9th Cir. 1984).
“To assure the region an adequate supply of electricity, the Act grants the BPA Administrator authority to acquire additional power sources, 16 U.S.C. § 839d, and to initiate conservation measures.”
Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 261 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “§ 839e(c), for sales to DSIs only apply to long term sales contracts entered into under Section 5(d), 16 U.S.C. § 839d(e). Petitioners assert that BPA’s interpretation is inconsistent with BPA’s prior position in the 1996 Rate ROD, which was used in adopting both the FPS-96 rate…”
Bell v. Bonneville Power Admin., 340 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “§ 839e(i), (4) BPA violated the resource acquisition provisions of 16 U.S.C. § 839d(c)(l), and (5) BPA violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not complementing the curtailment amendments .”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Johnson, 855 F.2d 647 (9th Cir. 1988).
“The solicitation set forth criteria used to select proposals and stated that the BPA was not committed to the purchase of any resources. At that time, PUD was apparently considering acquiring power from a facility known as Great Western Malting (GWM).”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839d(a) — 2 cases
— 16 U.S.C. § 839d(a)(2) — 2 cases
— 16 U.S.C. § 839d(b)(l) — 2 cases
California Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Comm'n v. Johnson, 807 F.2d 1456 (9th Cir. 1986).
“§ 839e(i), by establishing a rate without conforming to the prescribed rate-making procedures; (3) that power sales contract general provision 8(f) violates section 7(i) by establishing a method of cost allocation without conforming to the prescribed procedures; and (4) that…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839d(c) — 1 case
Util. Reform Proj. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 869 F.2d 437 (9th Cir. 1989).
“16 U.S.C. § 839d(c). If BPA decides to restart construction of WNP-3, it will acquire the IOUs’ shares of project capability and reimburse them for their costs to complete the project.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839d(c)(l) — 2 cases
Util. Reform Proj. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 869 F.2d 437 (9th Cir. 1989).
“16 U.S.C. § 839d(c). If BPA decides to restart construction of WNP-3, it will acquire the IOUs’ shares of project capability and reimburse them for their costs to complete the project.”
Bell v. Bonneville Power Admin., 340 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2003).
“§ 839e(i), (4) BPA violated the resource acquisition provisions of 16 U.S.C. § 839d(c)(l), and (5) BPA violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not complementing the curtailment amendments .”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839d(d) — 1 case
— 16 U.S.C. § 839d(e) — 1 case
Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 261 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2001).
“§ 839e(c), for sales to DSIs only apply to long term sales contracts entered into under Section 5(d), 16 U.S.C. § 839d(e). Petitioners assert that BPA’s interpretation is inconsistent with BPA’s prior position in the 1996 Rate ROD, which was used in adopting both the FPS-96 rate…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839d(e)(l) — 1 case
Avista Corp. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 380 F. App'x 652 (9th Cir. 2010).
“” 16 U.S.C. § 839d(e)(l). Here the BPA has reasonably concluded, supported by a lengthy administrative record, that seeking waivers of requests for billing credits from its customers is consistent with its tiered-rate approach to maximizing conservation efforts.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839d(h)(l) — 1 case
Avista Corp. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 380 F. App'x 652 (9th Cir. 2010).
“” 16 U.S.C. § 839d(e)(l). Here the BPA has reasonably concluded, supported by a lengthy administrative record, that seeking waivers of requests for billing credits from its customers is consistent with its tiered-rate approach to maximizing conservation efforts.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839d(i) — 1 case
— 16 U.S.C. § 839d(j) — 1 case
Energy Nw. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 531 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
“16 U.S.C. § 839d(j). Plaintiff did not reduce its claim to account for costs “already reimbursed” by BPA and the failure *554 to account for reimbursement by another entity constitutes “a failure of proof.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839d(k) — 2 cases
Avista Corp. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 380 F. App'x 652 (9th Cir. 2010).
“” 16 U.S.C. § 839d(e)(l). Here the BPA has reasonably concluded, supported by a lengthy administrative record, that seeking waivers of requests for billing credits from its customers is consistent with its tiered-rate approach to maximizing conservation efforts.”
Util. Reform Proj. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 869 F.2d 437 (9th Cir. 1989).
“16 U.S.C. § 839d(c). If BPA decides to restart construction of WNP-3, it will acquire the IOUs’ shares of project capability and reimburse them for their costs to complete the project.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839d(l)(B) — 1 case
Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 261 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2001).
“§ 839e(c), for sales to DSIs only apply to long term sales contracts entered into under Section 5(d), 16 U.S.C. § 839d(e). Petitioners assert that BPA’s interpretation is inconsistent with BPA’s prior position in the 1996 Rate ROD, which was used in adopting both the FPS-96 rate…”
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.