Bonneville Power Administration. (Docket Nos. 08-74927, 08- 74928, 08-74929, 08-74932, 08-74933, 08-74942, 08-74957 (Consolidated) USCA-Ninth Circuit) and to The Association of Public Agency Customers, et al. v.
Bonneville Power Administration. Nos. 08-74927 et al. Shortly 25 thereafter, six other petitions for review were filed by various BPA customers and constituents 26 seeking review of the same or substantially the same actions. On January 16, 2009, the Court 27 issued an order consolidating all the petitions for review and granting interventions. Petitioner-
Bonneville Power Administration. XXXX Digitally signed by XXXX XXXXXXXX HAIRSTONDate: 2022.09.30 By: Title:
Bonneville Power Administration. CEA ...................................... Canadian Electricity Association. CenterPoint .......................... CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC. Clinic ..................................... Xxxxxxxxx-Xxxxxxx Technology Law and Policy Clinic, University of Colorado Law School. Congressman Xxxxxx ........... Congressman Xxxxx Xxxxxx. 126 APPA, NRECA, and TAPS Comments at 6. Abbreviation Commenter
Bonneville Power Administration. Nos. 09-70228, 09-70236, 09-70988 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2009) (PNGC II), in which BPA determines that no payments are owing by Alcoa to BPA or by BPA to Alcoa, then Alcoa agrees that it waives any legal, equitable, or other claim or right of any nature that it has, or may have in the future, for money or any other remedy, with respect to the Block Power Sales Agreement by and between Alcoa, BPA, and Public Utility District No. 1 of Whatcom County, Washington (Contract No. 06PB-11744) (the Block Contract), as amended; provided, however, that the foregoing waiver by Alcoa will be of no force or effect in the event that the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate in a case in which it has granted a petition for review challenging the Remand ROD and has issued an order or opinion that finds such payments are required under the Block Contract or if BPA terminates this Agreement. that BPA improperly refused to offer the aluminum DSIs energy at a rate set under § 839e(c) before selling them power at an FPS rate.‖ BPA sought, and was denied rehearing on this question. Therefore, the surrender of Intalco’s claim for one-third of its otherwise unmet power needs that BPA must first offer within the Northwest region to Alcoa at the IP rate has a significant economic value, as well as the value of not disrupting BPA’s market-based electric power sales outside the region. Xxxxx Xxxxx – A-7 August 9, 2009 This waiver of the right to seek $195 million in restitution of the difference between the IP rate and the net power costs that Intalco actually incurred under the Block Power Sales Agreement forms additional consideration to BPA for entering into the 7-year contract. The Ninth Circuit in PNGC II observed: Petitioners also maintain that BPA’s decision to enter into the amended contract was not consistent with sound business principles because the agency did not first seek a refund of funds it improperly paid to Alcoa pursuant to the 2007 Contract. As BPA notes, however, there is a significant possibility that the DSIs do not owe BPA a refund. See infra Part IV.
Bonneville Power Administration. By: Title: Xxxx X. Xxxxxxxx Administrator and Chief Executive Officer Date U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS: By: Title: Xxxxx Xxx Xxxx, P.E. Colonel, U.S. Army Division Commander Date BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: By: Title: Xxxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxxx Regional Director Columbia- Pacific Northwest Region Date SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES OF THE FORT HALL RESERVATION: By: Title: Xxxxxx Xxxxx Chairman Fort Hall Business Council Date Second Extension – SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES / ACTION AGENCIES Accord Attachment A: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Project Portfolio
Bonneville Power Administration. By: Title: Xxxx X. Xxxxxxxx Administrator and Chief Executive Officer Date U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS: By: Title: Xxxxx Xxx Xxxx, P.E. Colonel, U.S. Army Division Commander Date BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: By: Title: Xxxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxxx Regional Director Columbia-Pacific Northwest Region Date CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION: By: Title: Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Chairman Colville Business Council Date 2022 Accord Extension – COLVILLE TRIBES / ACTION AGENCIES
Bonneville Power Administration. Because participants in the Wanapa Energy Center have requested to integrate power from the proposed electrical generating facility into the FCRTS at the XxXxxx Substation, BPA must decide whether and how to grant that request. These decisions include whether to connect a transmission line from the Wanapa Energy Center to the FCRTS, and whether to enter into contracts to interconnect the Center and integrate its power into the FCRTS. If BPA should decide to grant this request, the agency preferred transmission line route would be documented in the BPA ROD. The BPA also would decide whether to build or not to build the transmission line, if requested by the developer. BPA intends to base its decision on the following objectives: • An adequate, economical, efficient and reliable power supply to the Pacific Northwest, including FCRTS electrical stability and reliability; • Consistency with BPA environmental and social responsibilities; and • Cost and administrative efficiency.
