16 U.S.C. § 839f
Administrative provisions
Subject to the provisions of this chapter, the Administrator is authorized to contract in accordance with section 2(f) of the Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832a(f)). Other provisions of law applicable to such contracts on
The Administrator shall discharge the executive and administrative functions of his office in accordance with the policy established by the Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832 and following), section 7152(a)(2) and (3) of title 42, and this chapter. The Secretary of Energy, the Council, and the Administrator shall take such steps as are necessary to assure the timely implementation of this chapter in a sound and businesslike manner. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed by the Secretary, the Administrator, or any other official of the Department of Energy to modify, alter, or otherwise affect the requirements and directives expressed by the Congress in section 7152(a)(2) and (3) of title 42 or the operations of such officials as they existed prior to
Any contract of the Administrator for the sale or exchange of electric power for use outside the Pacific Northwest shall be subject to limitations and conditions corresponding to those provided in sections 2 and 3 of the Act of
There is hereby established within the administration an executive position for conservation and renewable resources. Such executive shall be appointed by the Administrator and shall be assigned responsibility for conservation and direct-application renewable resource programs (including the administration of financial assistance for such programs). Such position is hereby established in the senior executive service in addition to the number of such positions heretofore established in accordance with other provisions of law applicable to such positions.
The Bonneville Project Act of 1937, referred to in subsecs. (b) and (e)(5), is act Aug. 20, 1937, ch. 720, 50 Stat. 731, which is classified generally to chapter 12B (§ 832 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 832 of this title and Tables.
Act of
The Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act, referred to in subsec. (e)(5), is Pub. L. 93–454,
Section 103 of title 26, referred to in subsec. (f), which related to interest on certain governmental obligations was amended generally by Pub. L. 99–514, title XIII, § 1301(a),
Chapter 2C of title 15, referred to in subsec. (h), contained the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, act Aug. 26, 1935, ch. 687, title I, 49 Stat. 803, and consisted of section 79 et seq. of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–58, title XII, § 1263,
The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, referred to in subsec. (j)(1), is Pub. L. 95–617,
1986—Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 99–514 substituted “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” for “Internal Revenue Code of 1954”, which for purposes of codification was translated as “title 26” thus requiring no change in text.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 104
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Portland General Electric Co. v. Bonneville Power Administration
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bonneville Power Administration (2007)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(a) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 832a(f)).”
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. United States (1991)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(c). It provides that the conditions of sections 2 and 3 of the Regional Preference Act, 16 U.”
Southern California Edison v. United States (2003)
“BPA is to operate in a “sound and businesslike manner,” 16 U.S.C. § 839f(b), while abiding by numerous statutory directions désigned to establish a priority for the demands on BPA’s often limited supply of power.”
City of Burbank, California v. United States (2001)
“See 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e) (2000). After considering supplemental briefs in which the parties argued that both counts properly were brought before the Court of Federal Claims, the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
Alcoa, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Administration (2012)
“” 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(1). Accordingly, rate making is reviewed pursuant to the APA.”
Transmission Agency of Northern California v. Sierra Pacific Power Company, Bonneville Power Administration, Pacificorp, (2002)
“See 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(5). It also dismissed, as preempted under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.”
Puget Sound Energy, Inc., a Washington Corporation v. United States of America Administration, Bonneville Power Administ (2002)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(4)(D). Thus, judicial review of disputes over a rate or the implementation of a rate are placed within our exclusive jurisdiction.”
Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County v. Bonneville Power Administration (2007)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(1). Additionally, the Act provides a jurisdictional “catch-all” for other final actions: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude judicial review of other final actions and decisions by the Council or Administrator.”
Southern California Edison v. United States (2005)
“This court’s generally applicable jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over disputes arising with contracts entered between private parties and the federal government has been displaced or modified by explicit federal statutory law or treaty on relatively few occasions.”
Golden Northwest Aluminum, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Administration (2007)
“See 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(2). “Under the APA, we must uphold BPA’s actions unless they are ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
JTB Tools & Oilfield Services, L.L.C. v. United States (2016)
“1984) in the context of 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(5) and concluding that the statute vested the court of appeals with exclusive jurisdiction over "any suit seeking relief that might affect the court’s future jurisdiction” to review agency’s final action).”
Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative v. Bonneville Power Administration (2010)
“§§ 825s, 838g, 839e(a)(l)); see also 16 U.S.C. § 839f(b) (“[T]he Administrator shall take such steps as are necessary to assure the timely implementation of this chapter in a sound and businesslike manner.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(3)(5) — 1 case
Massie v. United States (1997)
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(a) — 8 cases
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bonneville Power Administration (2007)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(a) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 832a(f)).”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(b) — 8 cases
Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative v. Bonneville Power Administration (2010)
“§§ 825s, 838g, 839e(a)(l)); see also 16 U.S.C. § 839f(b) (“[T]he Administrator shall take such steps as are necessary to assure the timely implementation of this chapter in a sound and businesslike manner.”
Southern California Edison v. United States (2003)
“BPA is to operate in a “sound and businesslike manner,” 16 U.S.C. § 839f(b), while abiding by numerous statutory directions désigned to establish a priority for the demands on BPA’s often limited supply of power.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(c) — 5 cases
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. United States (1991)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(c). It provides that the conditions of sections 2 and 3 of the Regional Preference Act, 16 U.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(d) — 1 case
California Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission v. Bonneville Power Administration (1987)
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e) — 11 cases
City of Burbank, California v. United States (2001)
“See 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e) (2000). After considering supplemental briefs in which the parties argued that both counts properly were brought before the Court of Federal Claims, the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
Williams v. United States (2006)
Southern California Edison v. United States (2005)
“This court’s generally applicable jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over disputes arising with contracts entered between private parties and the federal government has been displaced or modified by explicit federal statutory law or treaty on relatively few occasions.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(1) — 8 cases
Alcoa, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Administration (2012)
“” 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(1). Accordingly, rate making is reviewed pursuant to the APA.”
Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County v. Bonneville Power Administration (2007)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(1). Additionally, the Act provides a jurisdictional “catch-all” for other final actions: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude judicial review of other final actions and decisions by the Council or Administrator.”
Southern California Edison v. United States (2005)
“This court’s generally applicable jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over disputes arising with contracts entered between private parties and the federal government has been displaced or modified by explicit federal statutory law or treaty on relatively few occasions.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(1)(A) — 2 cases
Nric v. Npcc (2013)
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(1)(B) — 2 cases
Southern California Edison v. United States (2005)
“This court’s generally applicable jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over disputes arising with contracts entered between private parties and the federal government has been displaced or modified by explicit federal statutory law or treaty on relatively few occasions.”
Golden Nw Aluminum v. Bpa (2007)
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(1)(G) — 5 cases
Southern California Edison v. United States (2005)
“This court’s generally applicable jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over disputes arising with contracts entered between private parties and the federal government has been displaced or modified by explicit federal statutory law or treaty on relatively few occasions.”
CP National Corp. v. Jura (1989)
City of Seattle v. Johnson (1984)
Golden Nw Aluminum v. Bpa (2007)
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(2) — 36 cases
Alcoa, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Administration (2012)
“” 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(1). Accordingly, rate making is reviewed pursuant to the APA.”
Golden Northwest Aluminum, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Administration (2007)
“See 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(2). “Under the APA, we must uphold BPA’s actions unless they are ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bonneville Power Administration (2007)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(a) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 832a(f)).”
City of Burbank, California v. United States (2001)
“See 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e) (2000). After considering supplemental briefs in which the parties argued that both counts properly were brought before the Court of Federal Claims, the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(3) — 12 cases
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bonneville Power Administration (2007)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(a) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 832a(f)).”
Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County v. Bonneville Power Administration (2007)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(1). Additionally, the Act provides a jurisdictional “catch-all” for other final actions: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude judicial review of other final actions and decisions by the Council or Administrator.”
City of Burbank, California v. United States (2001)
“See 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e) (2000). After considering supplemental briefs in which the parties argued that both counts properly were brought before the Court of Federal Claims, the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. United States (1991)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(c). It provides that the conditions of sections 2 and 3 of the Regional Preference Act, 16 U.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(4)(D) — 8 cases
Puget Sound Energy, Inc., a Washington Corporation v. United States of America Administration, Bonneville Power Administ (2002)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(4)(D). Thus, judicial review of disputes over a rate or the implementation of a rate are placed within our exclusive jurisdiction.”
City of Seattle v. Johnson (1987)
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(5) — 76 cases
Transmission Agency of Northern California v. Sierra Pacific Power Company, Bonneville Power Administration, Pacificorp, (2002)
“See 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(5). It also dismissed, as preempted under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.”
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. United States (1991)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(c). It provides that the conditions of sections 2 and 3 of the Regional Preference Act, 16 U.”
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bonneville Power Administration (2007)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(a) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 832a(f)).”
City of Burbank, California v. United States (2001)
“See 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e) (2000). After considering supplemental briefs in which the parties argued that both counts properly were brought before the Court of Federal Claims, the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
Southern California Edison v. United States (2003)
“BPA is to operate in a “sound and businesslike manner,” 16 U.S.C. § 839f(b), while abiding by numerous statutory directions désigned to establish a priority for the demands on BPA’s often limited supply of power.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(l) — 13 cases
Southern California Edison v. United States (2003)
“BPA is to operate in a “sound and businesslike manner,” 16 U.S.C. § 839f(b), while abiding by numerous statutory directions désigned to establish a priority for the demands on BPA’s often limited supply of power.”
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. United States (1991)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(c). It provides that the conditions of sections 2 and 3 of the Regional Preference Act, 16 U.”
City of Burbank, California v. United States (2001)
“See 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e) (2000). After considering supplemental briefs in which the parties argued that both counts properly were brought before the Court of Federal Claims, the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
Alcoa, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Administration (2012)
“” 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(1). Accordingly, rate making is reviewed pursuant to the APA.”
Puget Sound Energy, Inc., a Washington Corporation v. United States of America Administration, Bonneville Power Administ (2002)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(4)(D). Thus, judicial review of disputes over a rate or the implementation of a rate are placed within our exclusive jurisdiction.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(l)(A) — 3 cases
Southern California Edison v. United States (2003)
“BPA is to operate in a “sound and businesslike manner,” 16 U.S.C. § 839f(b), while abiding by numerous statutory directions désigned to establish a priority for the demands on BPA’s often limited supply of power.”
Seattle Master Builders Ass'n v. Pacific Northwest Electric Power & Conservation Planning Council (1986)
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(l)(B) — 11 cases
Southern California Edison v. United States (2003)
“BPA is to operate in a “sound and businesslike manner,” 16 U.S.C. § 839f(b), while abiding by numerous statutory directions désigned to establish a priority for the demands on BPA’s often limited supply of power.”
Golden Northwest Aluminum, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Administration (2007)
“See 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(2). “Under the APA, we must uphold BPA’s actions unless they are ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
City of Burbank, California v. United States (2001)
“See 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e) (2000). After considering supplemental briefs in which the parties argued that both counts properly were brought before the Court of Federal Claims, the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. United States (1991)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(c). It provides that the conditions of sections 2 and 3 of the Regional Preference Act, 16 U.”
Southern California Edison v. United States (2005)
“This court’s generally applicable jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over disputes arising with contracts entered between private parties and the federal government has been displaced or modified by explicit federal statutory law or treaty on relatively few occasions.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(l)(G) — 5 cases
Puget Sound Energy, Inc., a Washington Corporation v. United States of America Administration, Bonneville Power Administ (2002)
“16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(4)(D). Thus, judicial review of disputes over a rate or the implementation of a rate are placed within our exclusive jurisdiction.”
Golden Northwest Aluminum, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Administration (2007)
“See 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(2). “Under the APA, we must uphold BPA’s actions unless they are ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(g) — 2 cases
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(i)(3) — 1 case
— 16 U.S.C. § 839f(i)(l)(B) — 1 case
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.