Court Opinion

ID: 9475096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:17:24.739443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:30.682165
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part:
While I agree with much of the majority opinion, I write separately for two reasons. First, I find the majority unduly grudging in its deference to the BPA’s exclusion from ASC of return on equity. Second, I believe that we should address whether the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 1491, precludes our exercise of jurisdiction over petitioners’ claim that the BPA has breached the residential agreements.
I
The majority properly recognizes that our standard of review of the BPA’s exclusion from ASC of return on equity is highly deferential. The majority nonetheless finds this exclusion “troublesome.” In its view, the exclusion is “based not upon logic, but upon experience.” Maj. op. at 823. The majority finds the exclusion justified only as a response to a demonstrated need to enforce the Regional Act’s exclusion from ASC of terminated plant costs. It makes clear that it does not sanction the permanent implementation of this exclusion. Maj. op. at 823.
I see no reason to so limit our deference to the BPA’s decision to exclude'return on capital from ASC. Applying reasonable accounting classifications, the BPA logically determined that return on capital incorporates certain costs that are not resource costs within the meaning of the Regional Act. These nonresource costs include terminated plant costs as well as the more general costs of bearing the risk of business enterprise. I therefore disagree that the exclusion is supported only by evidence that terminated plant costs have been disguised as part of return on equity. Because the rationale for the exclusion is broader and reflects reasonable accounting classifications, I would give the exclusion full approval.
II
The BPA argues that we lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ claims that the BPA breached the residential agreements by initiating its rate making prematurely, see maj. op. at 823-825, and by revising its procedures for reviewing future ASC filings, see maj. op. at 825. Because the BPA raises a serious challenge to our jurisdiction, I believe that we should address its argument.
*826The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 1491, both confers jurisdiction and constitutes a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. North Side Lumber Co. v. Block, 753 F.2d 1482, 1484-85 (9th Cir.) (North Side), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 248, 88 L.Ed.2d 256 and, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 265, 88 L.Ed.2d 271 (1985). Under the Tucker Act, if a contractual claim does not exceed $10,000 in amount, the district courts have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the Court of Claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). If the claim equals or exceeds $10,000, the Court of Claims alone has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(a)(2), 1491. In neither case does the Tucker Act confer original jurisdiction on our court.
In claiming that the BPA breached the residential agreements by initiating its rate making prematurely and by revising its procedures for reviewing future ASC filings, petitioners assert a right that is essentially contractual since it derives from the residential agreements. See North Side, 753 F.2d at 1485-86; Megapulse, Inc. v. Lewis, 672 F.2d 959, 968-70 (D.C.Cir.1982) (Megapulse). Their claims therefore fall plainly within the scope of the Tucker Act.
The BPA argues that the Tucker Act provides the exclusive basis for the assertion of contract claims against the United States. If so, it follows that original jurisdiction over petitioners’ contract claims rests not in our court, but in either the Court of Claims or the district courts.
While the state of the law is not entirely clear, I believe that under our circuit precedent the jurisdiction conferred by the Tucker Act over contract claims against the United States is not exclusive. In Munoz v. Small Business Administration, 644 F.2d 1361, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1981) (Munoz), we held that a statute extended district court jurisdiction over contract actions against the Small Business Administration for money damages in excess of $10,000. In so doing, we rejected the district court’s holding that the Tucker Act provides exclusive jurisdiction over contract claims against the government. Id. at 1363, 1365 & n. 3. The rule that emerges from Munoz is that jurisdiction under the Tucker Act is not exclusive where other statutes independently confer jurisdiction and waive sovereign immunity. Id. at 1364-65 & n. 3; see Spectrum Leasing Corp. v. United States, 764 F.2d 891, 895 & n. 8 (D.C.Cir.1985) (discussing Munoz) (Spectrum Leasing); Van Drasek v. Lehman, 762 F.2d 1065, 1070-71 & n. 10 (D.C.Cir.1985) (same) (Van Drasek).
Our holding in North Side is not to the contrary. In North Side, 753 F.2d at 1485, 1486, we twice cited as authority the District of Columbia Circuit’s opinion in Mega-pulse, which appeared to hold that the Tucker Act provides exclusive jurisdiction over contract claims against the United States. 672 F.2d at 967. The court in Megapulse stated that “a plaintiff whose claims against the United States are essentially contractual should not be allowed to avoid the jurisdictional (and hence remedial) restrictions of the Tucker Act by casting its pleadings in terms that would enable a district court to exercise jurisdiction under a separate statute and enlarged waivers of sovereign immunity____” Id. Our holding in North Side, however, does not adopt Megapulse’s, ostensible reading of the Tucker Act as granting exclusive jurisdiction for contract claims. It is true that we refer in North Side to “the Tucker Act’s exclusive jurisdiction.” 753 F.2d at 1482 n. 5. But our holding that the contractual claim was subject to the Tucker Act can be reconciled with Munoz, because in North Side no other statutes independently conferred jurisdiction and waived sovereign immunity with respect to the claim. Indeed, a reading of Megapulse that the Tucker Act provides exclusive jurisdiction is not the view of the District of Columbia Circuit. See Spectrum Leasing, 764 F.2d at 895 & n. 8; Van Drasek, 762 F.2d at 1070-71 & n. 10.
Here, section 9(e)(5) of the Regional Act, 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(5), both confers jurisdiction and waives sovereign immunity with respect to suits challenging final actions of *827the BPA. The Tucker Act therefore does not bar our consideration of petitioners’ contract claims as part of our review of the BPA’s final rate making.