Opinion ID: 781485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: FERC's Factual Analysis

Text: 26 FERC conducted an analysis of records over a very long period and determined that Bear Lake reduced the output of electricity from the hydroelectric power plants in question below the output that would have been generated if Bear River had been allowed to run free. That is, Bear Lake actually had a negative effect upon the hydroelectric facilities, regardless of the initial hopes of Telluride. In reaching that conclusion, FERC compared the actual monthly flows of water at the plants with those that would have existed if Bear River had not been interfered with. Although water released for irrigation does generate power at certain of the hydroelectric projects and is in that sense beneficial at times, the overall operation of Bear Lake is detrimental to power generation at each and every one of the projects. 27 FERC's factual determinations cannot be set aside by us, if they were based upon substantial evidence. See Steamboaters v. FERC, 759 F.2d 1382, 1388 (9th Cir.1985). Here, as elsewhere, [s]ubstantial evidence constitutes more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. If the evidence is susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, we must uphold [FERC's] findings. Eichler v. S.E.C., 757 F.2d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir.1985) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Atlanta-One, Inc. v. S.E.C., 100 F.3d 105, 107 (9th Cir.1996). We are not able to say that FERC's determinations were contrary to the evidence. As it said, the key question was the actual impact of Bear Lake on downstream generating projects. PacifiCorp I, 97 FERC at 61,720. That impact was negative. Bear Lake Watch argues that FERC should only have concerned itself with the fact that Bear River water does reach the power projects via Bear Lake. It also argues that Telluride must have built the Bear Lake project for a reason. But, as FERC noted, those observations are essentially irrelevant. The real question is the effect, regardless of the original intentions. Moreover, the fact that Bear River water now comes via Bear Lake is not very interesting when the power plants would actually have had the use of even more water had Bear Lake never existed. The evidence supports those determinations. 28 At root, however, Bear Lake Watch is really attacking FERC's methodology. That attack fares no better, for we owe deference in that area also. As the Supreme Court has stated: When specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive. Marsh v. Oregon Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 1861, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989). We have elaborated on that theme, and had this to say when a party attacked the methodology used by an agency: 29 We are in no position to resolve this dispute because we would have to decide that the views of Council's experts have more merit than those of the [Forest Service's] experts. NEPA does not require that we decide whether an [EA] is based on the best scientific methodology available, nor does NEPA require us to resolve disagreements among various scientists as to methodology. 30 We defer to agency expertise on questions of methodology unless the agency has completely failed to address some factor, consideration of which was essential to a truly informed decision.... 31 Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council v. Schultz, 992 F.2d 977, 981 (9th Cir.1993) (citations and some quotation marks omitted). And, again, in Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324 (9th Cir.1992), we pointed out that although a party: 32 has demonstrated that some scientists dispute the Service's analyses and conclusions, such a showing is not a sufficient basis for us to conclude that the Service's action was arbitrary or capricious. If it were, agencies could only act upon achieving a degree of certainty that is ultimately illusory. 33 Id. at 1336. 34 Bear Lake Watch complains that FERC should have sliced time into smaller segments and considered daily or even hourly flow data. But even if that were a more sophisticated approach, as opposed to a more cumbersome one, we are not able to say that FERC's approach was incorrect. Nor can we say that its response was arbitrary or capricious. As FERC put it the losses in potential generation caused by Bear Lake operation are so consistent across such a broad range of conditions that any interstitial daily or hourly increases would clearly be dwarfed by corresponding decreases during other daily or hourly periods. PacifiCorp I, 97 FERC at ¶ 61,720 n.50. 7 We see no reason to fault that sensible scientific approach to the determination of the effect of Bear Lake on the generating possibilities of the Bear River. 8