Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Reservation and Yakama Indian Nation v BPA

Abstract

Based on the information presented during the initial and supplemental rate proceedings, it should have been apparent to BPA that its 1998 cost estimates were too low. Relying on outdated assumptions did not help BPA to “keep its options open”; rather, such reliance made it less likely that BPA would ultimately be able to live up to its statutory obligations to implement fish and wildlife and other commitments, including its commitment in the Principles to maintain sufficient financial reserves for the post-2006 rate period. Because BPA discounted and ignored crucial facts presented to it, the Ninth Circuit held that BPA’s fish and wildlife cost estimates and, by extension, the rates set pursuant to those estimates, were not supported by substantial evidence.