Opinion ID: 496623
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of Factual Justification

Text: 28 The petitioners argue that BPA's purported justifications for the policy lack a reasonable basis in fact and that BPA's action was therefore arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. 2 In Department of Water & Power, however, this court specifically found that the interim Access Policy was factually justified. There, we stated that BPA has presented reliable evidence that without a policy which carefully allocates Intertie access, it will experience significant revenue shortfalls in coming years. To the extent that the IAP [the Access Policy] is designed to mitigate projected deficits, therefore, the policy is not only statutorily authorized but statutorily mandated. Department of Water & Power, 759 F.2d at 693. As the petitioners concede, the interim policy and the revised policy are identical for these purposes. They point to nothing in the record of the revised proceedings that would require reexamination of their contention. Therefore, our earlier determination forecloses review here. See Royal Development Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd., 703 F.2d 363, 368 (9th Cir.1983). CEC's contention that Department of Water & Power should not control because the court there was unaware of BPA's huge net revenues and relied on conclusory evidence is merely an assertion that the case would have been decided differently on a different record. It does not provide a basis for disregarding the decision.