United States Ninth Circuit

In a dispute over a contract between the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Alcoa Inc., claiming that the contract is unlawful because it is inconsistent with the agency's statutory mandate to act in accordance with sound business principles, plaintiffs' petition for review is: 1) denied for review insofar as they pertain to the Initial Period because the belief that another approach to the BPA's policy judgment regarding the costs and benefits of its sale of electric power might have been wiser is not a valid basis for jettisoning an agency action as arbitrary and capricious; 2) dismissed as to those portions of the petition pertaining to the Second Period of the contract because the potential for BPA and Alcoa to enter into the Second Period of the contract is no longer before the court; and 3) denied as to petitioner's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) claim because declining to complete an EIS was not arbitrary and capricious where the BPA relied on a categorical exclusion to NEPA's requirements.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/16/2012
• Published 10/16/2012

Judges

• Ikuta

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel