O'Leary

Overton Power District No. 5 v. O'Leary

Good Law
73 F.3d 253·96 Daily Journal DAR 201·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 72·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 129
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 4, 1996No. 93-17233California2,332 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thompson, J.

Overton Power District No. 5 and Valley Electric Association (collectively “Over-ton/Valley”), two Nevada power suppliers, challenge the rate charged for power generated at Hoover Dam. The district court granted summary judgment rejecting most of Overton/V alley’s claims. Overton Power Dist No. 5 v. Watkins, 829 F.Supp. 1523 (D.Nev.1993). Because we conclude Over-ton/Valley lack standing, we remand with an order for the district court to vacate its opinion and dismiss Overton/Valley’s action.

FACTS

The Western Area Power Administration (Western) sets power rates for the Boulder Canyon Project — popularly known as Hoover Dam — under 43 U.S.C. § 617 , et seq. (the BCP statute). Western sells power generated at Hoover Dam to contractors designated by the BCP statute; in Nevada the Colorado River Commission (CRC) is the only designated contractor. See 43 U.S.C. § 619a. Overton/Valley purchase energy from the CRC at the same price the CRC paid for it, and they resell it to their customers.

On October 25, 1990, Western proposed a rate increase for Hoover Dam power and initiated the public comment process. On June 10, the Department of Energy (DOE) approved the new rate on an interim…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.