Opinion ID: 751394
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Power site formula

Text: 20 This court reviews de novo whether the district court used the correct legal standard in computing damages. Howard v. Crystal Cruises, Inc., 41 F.3d 527, 530 (9th Cir.1994). 21 The district court, noting that Kalispel II directed it to base its damage award on use of the value of tribal land as part of the power project, considered these five factors in setting the amount of damages: (1) the cost of alternative power; (2) the amount of incremental generation gained by flooding the Indian land; (3) the share of that incremental generation to be attributed to the land; (4) the percentage of the land owned by the Tribe; and (5) the amount of compound interest to be paid on the damages. Initially, PUD claims the district court should not have used any version at all of the power site formula, and should have applied a land appraisal method, or should have used the value of the land for grazing purposes (the measure of damages initially used by the district court at trial). 22 This argument is clearly without merit. In Kalispel II, this court rejected the district court's use of the grazing value of the land and specifically directed that, on remand, the district court use the value of the tribal lands as part of the power project. 28 F.3d at 1551. While regulation or case law did not compel the use of the formula, the court concluded that it is the most acceptable measure of damages for the utility's trespass, and added [t]he damage calculation urged by the Utility would encourage others to use Indian reservation lands for power production without complying with the [Federal] Power Act. Id. The Kalispel II court thus required the use of the power site formula, binding the district court. 23 The law of the case rule ordinarily precludes a court from re-examining an issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher appellate court, in the same case ... unless the evidence on a subsequent trial was substantially different, controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues, or the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice. 24 Pit River Home and Agricultural Coop. v. United States, 30 F.3d 1088, 1096-97 (9th Cir.1994) (quotations omitted). None of those exceptions applies here. We reject PUD's argument that alternative methods should have been used.