IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE, ET AL V. BPA, No. 22-70122 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is a federal agency tasked with selling the power generated at various hydroelectric facilities in the Pacific Northwest. In the decision on review, BPA set its rates for the 2022–2023 fiscal period. Environmental groups now petition for a review of that decision, arguing that BPA failed to comply with a pair of statutory duties in the Northwest Power Act relating to fish and wildlife.
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition. The panel held that petitioners had Article III standing. First, petitioners have alleged injury, in fact where they are interested in the fish populations in the Columbia River Basin, and ongoing harm to these fish populations inflicts an injury on petitioners’ members. Second, any harm to the fish populations is traceable to BPA’s BP-22 ratemaking. Third, Petitioners have adequately alleged redressability where it is a reasonable inference from the historical record that Petitioners’ injuries would be at least partially redressed by a favorable decision on the merits. Turning to the merits, the panel held that the text and structure of the NWPA as a whole convincingly provide that NWEPA Section 4(h)(11)(A) does not apply to rate making where that provision does not mention ratemaking, and other features of the statutory scheme buttress this conclusion.
Court Description: Bonneville Power Administration / Article III Standing. The panel denied a petition for review brought by environmental groups alleging that the Bonneville Power Administration (“BPA”) failed to comply with its statutory duties in the Northwest Power Act (“NWPA”) relating to fish and wildlife when BPA issued a decision setting power rates for the 2022-2023 fiscal period (“BP-22”).
BPA is a federal agency tasked with selling the power generated at various hydroelectric facilities in the Pacific Northwest. The Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council (“the Council”) is a policymaking body responsible for developing a document called the “Program,” which lays out measures to protect, mitigate, and enhance the fish and wildlife that are affected by dam and reservoir projects within the Columbia River Basin. Petitioners alleged that in its BP-22 ratemaking, BPA failed to abide by NWPA § 4(h)(11)(A), which requires BPA provide equitable treatment for fish and wildlife, and take into account the Council’s Program.
The panel held that petitioners had Article III standing. First, petitioners have alleged injury in fact where they are interested in the fish populations in the Columbia River Basin, and ongoing harm to these fish populations inflicts an injury on petitioners’ members. Second, any harm to the fish populations is traceable to BPA’s BP-22 ratemaking. Third, petitioners have adequately alleged redressability where it is a reasonable inference from the historical record that petitioners’ injuries would be at least partially redressed by a favorable decision on the merits.
Turning to the merits, the panel held that the text and structure of the NWPA as a whole convincingly provides that NWEPA § 4(h)(11)(A) does not apply to ratemaking where that provision does not mention ratemaking, and other features of the statutory scheme buttress this conclusion.
Dissenting, Judge Bea would hold that petitioners have not demonstrated that they have Article III standing because the alleged injury is not fairly traceable to BPA’s ratemaking decisions, and therefore this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the petition for review.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.