Case Law - Excel

Document Sample
Case Law - Excel Powered By Docstoc
					    Back to Main Page

    Case                                Reference                      Dated       Parties Involved Description/Purpose

1   Tennessee Electric Power vs.        306 U.S. 118-152              1/30/1939       TEP/TVA         TEP filed suit against TVA regarding the inability to compete with federal project
    Tennessee Valley Authority                                                                        rates. Court ruled that the sale of Federal power is the sale of Federal property.
                                                                                                      The government has discretion as to how to dispose of its property. No ownership rights.

2   Kansas City Power and Light Co.     Civ. A. No. 4276-50           6/17/1953      KCPL / DOI       IOU's alleged DOI conspiracy to enter into system of contracts to enable SPA
    et al vs. McKay Secretary of the                                                                  to acquire by use of REA funds, generating capacity and transmission which
    Interior et al                                                                                    would compete with plantiff IOU's. Court ruled that contracts were valid and did
                                                                                                      not violate provisions of the Rural Electrification Act or the Flood Control Act and
                                                                                                      found no constitutional limitation to prevent the acquisition of the properties.
                                                                                                      SPA would lease transmission facilities to be constructed by rural co-operatives
                                                                                                      with REA loads under which SPA would purchase entire output of generating
                                                                                                      plants to be constructed by funds advanced to co-operatives by REA. REA was
                                                                                                      to loan funds to Co-Ops, Co-Ops were to use money to build G&T, loan contracts
                                                                                                      required Co-Ops to enter into leasing agreements (funds recapture), 40 year
                                                                                                      leasing terms were negotiated, SPA gains control of facilities for the 40 year
                                                                                                      period and agrees to pay all costs of operation, maintenance, repair and
                                                                                                      capital replacements, as well as amortization payments on the loans. Both
                                                                                                      agreements call for a third power contract which coincides with the other two.
                                                                                                      Under power contract SPA agrees to purchase all output of gen. and agrees
                                                                                                      to resell power to each of the Co-ops as its members require, at the rate
                                                                                                      designated in SPA's rate schedule (approved by FPC).

3   Arizona vs. California et al.       373 U.S. 892, 11 L ed2d 122   6/3/1963     AZ/CA/NV/NM        AZ filed suit against CA regarding water rights. Background of water
                                                                                      UT/ US          rights arguments and activities. BCP '28 is referenced regularly in this case.

4   Iowa Public Service Company         No. 19281                     3/5/1969     IPSC/ISCC/BOR      IPSC brought action to restrain BOR from selling Federal generation under the
    vs. Iowa State Commerce                                                                           Flood Control Act of 1944 to Iowa Muni's. IPSC filed a complaint with ISCC
    commission & BOR                                                                                  stating that the proposed sale of electric power to muni's being served by IPSC
                                                                                                      is against state law. ISCC researched and dismissed complaint.
                                                                                                      Court ruled that the activities of the federal officials and BOR in offering to
                                                                                                      furnish Federal generation by virtue of congressional authority expressed
                                                                                                      in the Act are protected by supremacy clause of US constitution from
                                                                                                      interference by state regulation or control.

5   Arizona Power Pooling Assn.         Nos. 74-1167, 74-1168,        9/24/1975   APPA/APA/Interior Primarily the disposal of surplus Navajo Gen. CAP would not be
    Arizona Power Authority et al vs.   74-1173                                                     completed until 1980, but Navajo Gen avail. In 1974. BOR provided
    Morton Sec. of Interior / US                                                                    surplus to SRP,LADWP,APS,TEP,NPC,&SCE. Lion's share to SCE.
                                                                                                    9/30/1969 Secretary submitted his recommended plan for CAP to
                                                                                                    congress which included "SCE would be a purchaser of a major
                                                                                                    portion of the US entitlement to gen and trans. Prior to CAP's needs
                                                                                                    BOR argued 1)Preference law was not intended for thermal CAP power
                                                                                                    2) disposal of power was at the agency's discretion 3) Congress
                                                                                                    approval of plan has the force of law. Court ruled that thermal or
                                                                                                    hydro does not matter, it's still federal generation Congress was not presented
                                                                                                    material showing preference customers requested and were denied
                                                                                                    to serve non-preference, therefore was not knowingly reversing
                                                                                                    any preference laws. The Secretary must abide by the preference
                                                                                                    clause to the extent the allocation to a preference customer does not
                                                                                             impair the efficiency of the project for irrigation purposes in the
                                                                                             judgement of the secretary. Offered to list based on adequate
                                                                                             back-up capacity and transmission facilities, ie a cascading blackout
                                                                                             would be detrimental to the efficiency of the project for irrigation.

6   City of Santa Clara CA vs.              No. C-75-1574   7/23/1976    City/BOR/PGE        BOR withdrew CVP federal hydro from City. City cited poor BOR public
    Kleppe/Andrus Sec. of Interior/BOR                                                       process/communication. PGE intervened as a defendant. City claims
                                                                                             BOR's allocation scheme is legally defective. City wants to buy CVP
                                                                                             power at $5 vs. PGE power at $19. Additional power became
                                                                                             available and SantaClara did not receive any due to an inability to take
                                                                                             power immediately. Provided more non-withdrawable to existing customers
                                                                                             before SantaClara. BOR had a banking agreement with PGE to meet the load growth
                                                                                             needs of the non-withdrawable CVP customers. While BOR's
                                                                                             intent was with preference customers in mind the banking scheme
                                                                                             still allowed for PGE to profit by the sale of Federal power.

7   Arizona Power Authority vs.             No. 75-2141     1/17/1977       APA/BOR          CRSP marketed to CO/UT/NM/WY. APA and eight other entities
    Morton Sec. for Interior, & Armstrong                                                    brought suit against the Secretary challenging this geographic
    as Commish. Of BOR                                                                       preference. AZ contended that implementation of the geographic
                                                                                             preference was beyond the Secretary's authority. BOR figured southern states
                                                                                             were being afforded BCP/PDP and a weighting to northern states was
                                                                                             appropriate. Southern states would get allocation, but withdrawable in the
                                                                                             event the northern states required it. Original suit filed 12/1971 decided in favor
                                                                                             of the Secretary 5/1975. Was foreseen that non-preference upper basin entities
                                                                                             would be provided power prior to preference entities in southern states. This
                                                                                             being predicated based on the geographic limitation of the marketing area.
                                                                                             Documentation provides a fair amount of insight and background to the CRSP
                                                                                             legislation and intent of congress with regard to geographic limitations and
                                                                                             preference law. Court decided that based on arguments presented that BOR's
                                                                                             authority to allocate did not violate any statute and therefore the parameters
                                                                                             of the marketing plan to treat regions differently is at the broad discretion of
                                                                                             the secretary and that the court is without jurisdiction to review this case.

8   Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, City of       CV 77-4790ALS   3/20/1978   FMIT/Needles et al   Question of whether plaintiffs are entitled to continue receiving Federal power.
    Needles, Needles Unified School                                           BOR            MWD could not use its full 36% of BCP power from 1930 - 1954. LADWP &
    District, Needles Community                                                              SCE declined to excersise their options to take this power. BOR entered into
    Hospital District vs. BOR                                                                various contracts of which Citizens Utilities Co. and California Pacific Utilities Co.
                                                                                             were included. Both contracts were to expire 12/31/54 and contained no
                                                                                             provisions for renewal. Cal-Pac provided power to Needles. Both customers
                                                                                             aggresively pursued renewals with little success. Cal-Pac was granted power
                                                                                             but the source was changed to PDP. This served most, but not all of Needles
                                                                                             needs. Beginning in 1977 Cal-Pac began to suppliment with thermal purchases.
                                                                                             1.6MW in winter and 9.6MW in summer. Bought from NPC. In 1975 BOR
                                                                                             sought to re-allocate the power to other entities. FMIT claimed that BOR is the
                                                                                             legal trustee and owe a duty to make the Indian's assets (the utilization of their
                                                                                             ancestral lands) productive. With this duty it is BOR's obligation to provide
                                                                                             preference to tribes in the allocations. Tribes also claim that as a class of
                                                                                             preference customers, and since the Federal govt' is in a fiduciary relationship
                                                                                             with respect to the indians, the duties are to be met by allocating power to the
                                                                                             Tribe. Failure to allocate to them constitues an actionable breach of statutory
                                                                                             duty by the trustee (BOR). Tribes also claim BOR violated NEPA. Tribes also
                                                                                             allege a denial of due process of law. Court found no responsibility to provide
                                                                                             low cost federal hydro to the Tribe and therefore found for BOR on all accounts.
                                                                                             Cited that the plantiffs are considered preference entities, but as long as power
                                                                                             is being allocated to preference entitties judicial review is not applicable. The
                                                                                             authority to allocate among preference entities is at the discretion of BOR.

9   City of Anaheim, Riverside,             No. 77-2431     2/20/1979   Ana/Riv/Ban/Interior Cities were denied surplus Navajo Gen. Cities did not offer to buy
    Banning CA vs. Kleppe /Interior/BOR                                                      surplus Navajo Gen even though they were aware of its existence

10 United States of America vs.             No. 79-4507     8/13/1981      US / SMUD         US brought action against SMUD seeking judicial interpretation of contract
   Sacramento Municipal Utility                                                              between the parties, under which the US agreed to sell power to SMUD, and
   District                                                                                  SMUD refused to pay a rate increase. Court ruled in favor of US and SMUD
                                                                                             appealed. Court of Appeals held that the contract was not clear regarding
                                                                                    government's right to recover costs of importing power and that interpretation
                                                                                    of the contract would not have allowed recovery of cost of purchased power.
                                                                                    Ambiguously worded contracts should not be interpreted to render them
                                                                                    illegal if legal construction is plausible. In lay terms.. US believed cost recovery
                                                                                    was included in contract and SMUD claims an ambiguous/confusing contract.
                                                                                    District Court granted in favor of US stating that 1) The contract was clear and
                                                                                    unambiguous on its face and thus extrinsic evidence was inadmissible; 2) the
                                                                                    interpretation urged by SMUD would restrict Congress' plenary power to define
                                                                                    the scope of the Central Valley Project and therefore would be illegal. The
                                                                                    Reclamation Act recognizes the inherenet power of the Secretary to purchase
                                                                                    power on "credit" from other sources when conditions prevent hydro-electric
                                                                                    facilities from functioning at capacity. Appeals court sent back to district court
                                                                                    for further proceedings.

11 Southestern Power Administration     No. El80-7         9/10/1981     SPA/KUC    SEPA needed transmission from KUC to deliver Federal generation to preference
   vs. Kentucky Utilites Co.                                                        customers. Preference customers were full rquirements customers of KUC.
                                                                                    SEPA proposes that KUC be required to accept delivery of 25MW to be delivered
                                                                                    to the preference customer. Made mention of a billing credit system. Suggested
                                                                                    contractual arrangements would be 1) Contract beween SEPA/Customer for
                                                                                    sale of Federal generation and SEPA's agreement to contract for transmission
                                                                                    to deliver; 2) Contract between SEPA and KUC in which SEPA would take and pay
                                                                                    for transmission service to deliver Federal generation and KUC would agree to
                                                                                    credit customers for Federal generation/transmission received; 3) Contract(s)
                                                                                    between KUC and customer for power supply from KUC that is supplimental
                                                                                    to the Federal generation with billing credits applied for receipt of Federal
                                                                                    generation. Discussed the customers' peaks and differences of SEPA's
                                                                                    capacity credit proposal to what is more likely if applied to actual schedules.
                                                                                    Court found that the transaction proposed by SEPA including the demand charge
                                                                                    credits included as an integral requirment of the transaction, does not constitute
                                                                                    a request for the performance of a transmission service which may be subject of
                                                                                    an order pursuant to the Federal Power Act. Basically if SEPA wanted to buy
                                                                                    traditional transmission they can do so, but they can't force KUC's hand in
                                                                                    agreeing to take power and credit preference customers based on SEPA
                                                                                    defined terms, if at all.
                                                                                    3 years after govt. contracted for sale the Cities raised issue.
    Appealed                            No 79-3803         10/13/1981               BOR was required to submit CAP plan to congress by 9/1969, but
                                                                                    it wasn't until 6/1969 that the Navajo steering committee reached a
                                                                                    decision to build the gen. Court ruled in favor of BOR as the Cities
                                                                                    were in the know as to the surplus and didn't offer to buy.

12 Central Lincoln Peoples' Utlity      No. 81-7561         4/6/1982    CLPU/BPA    BPA offered to Direct Service Industrial (DSI) customers, mostly a
   District et al vs                                                                heirarchy of non-firm power that is surplus to project needs. CLPU
   Johnson Admin of BPA                                                             contends that the allocation of surplus non-firm should be sold according
                                                                                    to preference provisions and only if preference customers needs
                                                                                    are met then something could be provided to DSI's. BPA argues
                                                                                    that the DSI's higher rates subsidize the rates of preference customers
                                                                                    DSI's still needed some resource assurance. Court found that while
                                                                                    BPA's intent was to serve the preference clause it's scheme was
                                                                                    still inconsistent with preference law.

13 Aluminum Co. of America et al        No. 82-1071         6/5/1984    ACA/CLPU    US Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit Court's
   vs. CLPU                                                                         previous ruling. The Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and
   Follow up suit to previous suit                                                  Conservation Act does not require DSI power to be interruptible to
                                                                                    meet the non-firm power desires of preference customers.

14 Basin Electric Power Cooperative      No. CV-84-138-H   1/11/1985    BEPC/MPSC   MPSC challenged BEPC's sale of power to WAPA using BPA transmission.
   vs. Montana Public Service Commission                                WAPA/BPA    Claim stated MPSC lacked authority to enforce environmental standards and
   WAPA & BPA                                                                       lakced standing under the Administrative Procedure Act to invalidate the
                                                                                    power transfer. 4/15/1982 BEPC sold to WAPA power from the Antelope Valley
                                                                                    Station generation for use by consumers in CA. 185MW for 5 years. WAPA
                                                                                    entered MOU with BPA for transmission across Montana. MPSC intervened
                                                                                    on grounds that WAPA and BPA violated NEPA by failing to provide a Environmental
                                                                                    Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement on the power supply contract
                                                                                    or the transmission MOU or the Intertie Access Policy of BPA. The MPSC claims
                                                                                                    the transactions will degrade the human environment, adversely effect Montana
                                                                                                    ratepayers, and that MPSC has a right under NEPA to comment on the impacts
                                                                                                    to the environment. The court found that MPSC lacks the authority and standing
                                                                                                    to assert such claims. Stated that the MPSC is not charged with environmental
                                                                                                    quality. The claim is denied based on lack of authority to regulate outside of
                                                                                                    ratesetting practices and the sale of power to WAPA was prudent.

15 Arvin-Edison Water Storage              Nos. 82-2466, 83-0232   3/28/1985    AEWSD/HODEL 11 Irrigation and water storage districts organized under CA law
   District vs. Don Hodel                                                                   challenged decisions made by government concerning CVP. No super-
                                                                                            preference for irrigation districts. All preference customers are
                                                                                            equal. Irrigators are not entitled to PUP rates (if calculated). CVP load
                                                                                            was increased by 102MW and concern over sufficent generation to cover.
                                                                                            Would BOR's aggressive approach to available power impair the
                                                                                            efficiency of project for irrigation purposes? Does it increase rates making the
                                                                                            project less efficient? Basically Western can market what it believes to
                                                                                            be pertinent to the extent it does not impair on the efficiency of the project.

16 Electricities of North Carolina Inc.    No. 84-2271             10/10/1985   NC/VA/SC Utilities NC/SC/VA muni's seeking judicial review of final power marketing policy of SEPA
   NC/VA/SC Muni's conglomerate                                                 aka "ElectriCities" Appeal of original case. SEPA decided to retain pre-existing allocations to
   vs. SEPA Geisinger &                                                              vs. SEPA       customers and to impose a 150-mile radius limitation. Plantiffs argue that
   Donald Hodel Secretary of Energy                                                                 there was improper political influence when developing the plan/policies.
                                                                                                    Court sided with SEPA stating that SEPA's actions were nonreviewable because
                                                                                                    "committed to agency discretion by law" and that SEPA's policy, even if subject
                                                                                                    to judicial review, was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
                                                                                                    SEPA conducted a public process to determine the marketing policy. ElectriCities
                                                                                                    provided comments to the effect that SEPA should allocate to all interested
                                                                                                    preference entities proporionately equal allocations. SEPA held two more PCF's
                                                                                                    SEPA published that the # of customers would increase from 150 to
                                                                                                    204. Included in the increased customers were a few of the Plantiffs. Would
                                                                                                    still maintain contracts to existing customers. New customers would only get
                                                                                                    power as available from upgrades/expansion and to be shared with existing.
                                                                                                    Plantiffs claim that SEPA's preference to existing customers and geographic
                                                                                                    limitation of 150-mile radius constitute an abuse of discretion and was in
                                                                                                    violation of the Flood Control Act of 1944 which calls for "most widespread use
                                                                                                    thereof at lowest possible rates…"

17 ElectriCities of North Carolina Inc.    No. C-C-85-384-P        10/30/1985   ElectriCities/SEPA/ ElectriCities again claims that SEPA violated the Flood Control Act of 1944,
   vs SEPA et al (Several SEPA                                       GA Pwr/AL Pwr/Gulf Pwr/MS Pwr procedural provisions of the DOE Org.Act and the Administrative Procedure Act
   Customers)                                                                                       Claim SEPA made determinations, sales, and allocations of power in certain
                                                                                                    contracts withouth first publishing the proposed rule or order and policy. Further
                                                                                                    claims the private Defendants violated applicable state laws by their alleged
                                                                                                    intentional interference with prospective business relations. Again sited SEPA's
                                                                                                    public process with multitude of PCF's related to marketing policy and allocations.
                                                                                                    Court dismissed stating that Electricities claims do not meet the requirements
                                                                                                    of standing 1) injury in fact, 2) causal connection, and 3) injury capable of redress
                                                                                                    In other words by way or SEPA's allocation they weren't injured as caused by
                                                                                                    SEPA's actions that were able to be avoided or provided sufficient remedy.

18 Brazos Electric Power Cooperative       No. W-84-CA-101         12/30/1985     BEPC/SWPA/        Brazos G&T brought suit challenging actions of SWPA in failing
   vs. Southwest Power Administration                                              RCE/TLE           to consider merits of its application for allocation of federal power and allocating
   & Rayburn Country Elec. Coop. /                                                                   to someone else (RCE/TLEC). Allocated to RCE/TLEC so that the
   Tex-La Elec. Coop.                                                                               Co-op's could wheel the power into Ercot for SWPA to SWPA's preference
                                                                                                    customers. Brazo's didn't participate in SWPA's public allocation
                                                                                                    process. Not till after allocations were made and wheeling/service
                                                                                                    agreements were executed did Brazos raise the issue. Brazos denied
                                                                                                    by courts stating that one does not obtain an entitlement to federal
                                                                                                    power, yet only a preference in allocation. Request for allocation
                                                                                                    was grossly past the public process and only after final allocations made.
                                                                                                    Ok to arrange for transmission over non-preference entities to be
                                                                                                    able to deliver to preference entities. Either Western or its customers.

19 Trinity County Public Utilities Dist.   No. 85-1874             1/23/1986     TCPUD / WAPA Appeal of summary judgement. First preference customers have first preference
   et al vs. John Harrington et al and                                                        to energy and rates based on federal hydro project as a whole, rather than from
   NCPA,SMUD Intervenors                                                                      two plants. Appeals court held that 1) customers had first preference rights to
                                                                                                    energy and rates based on project as a whole, rather than from two plants, and
                                                                                                    2) cost of power imported into project area were properly includable in rates
                                                                                                    charged to first preference customers. Purchased power that is reasonably
                                                                                                    considered a feature of the project can be included in whole project rate base.
                                                                                                    WAPA gave notice of a project rate adjustment, Plantiffs objected to the proposed
                                                                                                    rates, the FERC approved WAPA's proposed rates for a five year period. Two
                                                                                                    approval acts in play, one for CVP the other to include Trinity and New Molones
                                                                                                    into CVP. Assume original CVP customer rates going up with inclusion of new
                                                                                                    generation. Original customers don't want to integrate costs.

20 City of South Sioux City, City of      Nos. 85-1757, 85-1895    6/5/1986       Cities/WAPA       The Cities were denied allocations based on untimely applications.
   Randolf, City of Madison, City of                                                                Claim WAPA's notice of the informal allocation proceedings were not
   Wakefield, Municipal Corp. of                                                                    sufficient in communicating the need for a timely application. WAPA
   Nebraska vs. WAPA                                                                                replied that even if their applications were timely they weren't eligible
                                                                                                    because they were already receiving fed power indirectly through
                                                                                                    Neb. Pub Util. Dist. Their marketing plan disqualified any entity which
                                                                                                    was already receiving the benefits of low-cost federal power either directly
                                                                                                    or indirectly from WAPA. Court held that WAPA did provided insufficient
                                                                                                    notice, however WAPA was still in it's authority to follow the published
                                                                                                    plan which made the Cities ineligible. Therefore no allocation granted.

21 Salt Lake City et al (Utah Power &     Civil No. C86-1000G     10/19/1987       UP&L et al       WAPA marketing the CRSP power in the '86-'89 timeframe. UP&L et al claim
   Light and collective Utah muni's vs.                                          WAPA/CREDA/         WAPA violated jurisdictional provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act
   WAPA et al (CREDA / CCPS)                                                   Coalition of Consumer They sought judicial review of WAPA's distribution of the Criteria which stated
                                                                               Owned Power Systems no CRSP power would be allocated to UP&L or to any of the 143 muni's, counties
                                                                                     (CCPS)         and towns located in Utah and Wyoming. Also challenged some of WAPA's
                                                                                                    operations practices and WAPA's failure to conduct an environmental impact
                                                                                                    study in the development of the Criteria. Claim WAPA has acted in a manner
                                                                                                    that is arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in
                                                                                                    accordance with law. CREDA intervened as defendant. UP&L was resolved to
                                                                                                    act on behalf of the 143 Utah/Wyoming muni's to acquire CRSP power and to
                                                                                                    provide utility services at cost. UP&L was to take reciept of power and deliver
                                                                                                    it to the participating preference muni's. WAPA responded to UP&L's application
                                                                                                    stating 1) WAPA did not consider UP&L a preference entity under applicable law
                                                                                                    2) WAPA did not believe that the DOE Act statement of purpose overrode or
                                                                                                    changed the preference requirements that UP&L claims 3) that Federal policy
                                                                                                    of charging lowest possible rates did not mean that WAPA must take UP&L higher
                                                                                                    price bid. WAPA's position was that an allocation to UP&L whether acting for
                                                                                                    itself or on behalf of others would be an allocation to a non-preference entity.
                                                                                                    Court found that Flood Control Act does not provide law to apply to WAPA's
                                                                                                    decisions regarding UP&L's preference status, or to WAPA's decisions regarding
                                                                                                    allocation of power among existing and new customers. Quoted "statute breathe
                                                                                                    discretion at every pore" in the context of WAPA's allocation abilities among
                                                                                                    preference entities. WAPA also denied UP&L's application made on behalf
                                                                                                    of the muni's because the muni's were not entitled to the same amount of
                                                                                                    preference as muni's with their own distribution systems or otherwise demonstrated
                                                                                                    "utility responsibility". UP&L asserted that WAPA overextended it's authorities
                                                                                                    by buying and integrating thermal power with the hydro. Court found that it is
                                                                                                    not unlawful for WAPA to do so.