Opinion ID: 496623
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exclusion of New Generating Sources

Text: 40 With the exception of two specific sources, the Access Policy denies access for firm power to Pacific Northwest resources not operational on September 7, 1984. See Revised Near Term Intertie Access Policy, 50 Fed.Reg. at 26,828-29. CEC argues that this exclusion discriminates against utilities which develop new generating sources in violation of 16 U.S.C. Secs. 837e and 839f(d). 5 Because CEC represents California energy interests, it has standing to challenge the overall exclusion of new generating sources which may result in higher prices to California consumers. See California Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Comm'n v. Johnson, 783 F.2d 858, 860 n. 2 (9th Cir.1986), modified, 807 F.2d 1456 (1987); California Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Comm'n v. Bonneville Power Admin., 754 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1005, 106 S.Ct. 524, 88 L.Ed.2d 457 (1985). 41 Section 9(d) of the Regional Act requires that in providing transmission access BPA not discriminate against a utility on the basis of independent development of resources. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 839f(d). 6 From this language CEC finds a statutory obligation to provide Intertie access to all new generating sources. Section 9(d), however, specifically states that the duty to provide nondiscriminatory service is subject to ... any other obligations under existing law. Id. BPA points to two other obligations to justify its decision to exclude newly operational resources under the interim and revised Near Term policies. 42 The first is BPA's statutory obligation under the Regional Act to use its authorities ... to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife in the Columbia River basin. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 839b(h)(10)(A); see Record of Decision I, at 82-85; see also Forelaws on Board v. Johnson, 743 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 3293, 92 L.Ed.2d 709 (1986). 7 During notice and comment proceedings, interested parties expressed concern that the policy not enable or encourage resources which adversely affect anadromous fish. Record of Decision I, at 66. BPA was legitimately concerned lest its allocation policy encourage new development harmful to fish and wildlife. 8 By excluding new generating sources in its interim and revised Near Term policies, BPA could avoid encouraging harmful development while it evaluated less restrictive alternatives. BPA could also pursue its statutory obligation to be fiscally self-supporting while it developed an alternative. 9 43 Additionally, under the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA], 42 U.S.C. Secs. 4321-4361, BPA must prepare an environmental impact statement before undertaking any action that would significantly affect the quality of the environment. See Forelaws on Board v. Johnson, 743 F.2d 677, 681-82 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 3293, 92 L.Ed.2d 709 (1986). Because of the uncertain impact of the allocation policy on the environment, the agency reasonably concluded that it should exclude new generating sources in the interim and revised Near Term policies. 44 CEC nevertheless recites 16 U.S.C. Sec. 837e in support of its assertion that the exclusion provision exceeds statutory authority. That section provides that the Intertie shall be made available as a carrier for transmission of [non-federal] electric energy. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 837e. 10 CEC argues that it mandates access to all new sources regardless of environmental impact. The legislative history of the subsequently enacted Regional Act makes clear, however, that environmental concerns are to be given a heightened priority and that the Regional Act creates a new obligation on the region, the BPA, and other Federal agencies to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife. 126 Cong.Rec. 29809 (1980) (statement of chief sponsor Rep. Dingall), reprinted in United States Department of Energy, Legislative History of the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act 138 (1981); see 16 U.S.C. Sec. 839(6); see also 126 Cong.Rec. 27825 (1980) (statement of Rep. Bonker) (The language in this bill--if interpreted according to the historical development and record of this legislation--will insure that power needs and fish needs are considered equally in the allocation of available water resources. That is the intent of Congress.), reprinted in Legislative History at 190. The Regional Act's focus on preservation and conservation modifies BPA's preexisting directives emphasizing widespread use of energy, sound business principles, and the lowest rates possible. See Blumm, The Northwest's Hydroelectric Heritage: Prologue to the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, 58 Wash.L.Rev. 175, 232-35 (1983). 45 We deal here with an interim ban. The petitioners do not point to any planned source which has yet been affected adversely. Although we do not purport to decide whether an absolute exclusion of new generating sources would be reasonable in a long term access policy, the present interim exclusion of new generating sources is not facially invalid. 46 The petitions are DENIED.