Idaho Conservation League v. Bpa, 83 F.4th 1182

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) markets power from the Federal Columbia River Power System and funds operations from power-sale revenues; rates are set via multi-party rate proceedings and informed by pre-rate Integrated Program Review (IPR) spending projections.
For FY 2022–2023 (BP‑22), BPA used IPR projections and a ratemaking settlement that modestly reduced rates and prioritized financial stability; petitioners (environmental groups) argued BPA should have allocated more funding for fish and wildlife mitigation.
Petitioners challenged BP‑22 under NWPA § 4(h)(11)(A), which directs federal managers to provide “equitable treatment” for fish and wildlife and to “take into account” the Council’s Program “to the fullest extent practicable.”
FERC approved BPA’s BP‑22 rates; petitioners sought review in the Ninth Circuit. The panel considered Article III standing before addressing the merits.
The panel majority held petitioners had standing but concluded § 4(h)(11)(A) does not apply to BPA’s ratemaking/IPR projections, so BPA did not violate the NWPA; petition denied. A dissent would have dismissed for lack of standing under Brown and related precedents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing	Petitioners: reduced ratemaking projections constrain future spending and harm members’ recreational/aesthetic interests in basin fish; historical correlation between projections and actual spending makes causation plausible.	BPA: ratemaking only sets cost recovery (not final funding); any link to fish harm is too attenuated.	Majority: petitioners have standing—alleged aesthetic injuries, plausible traceability given BPA’s historical adherence to projections, and redressability. Dissent: would find standing lacking under Brown.
Whether NWPA § 4(h)(11)(A) applies to ratemaking/IPR	Petitioners: § 4(h)(11)(A)’s equitable‑treatment and “take into account” duties require BPA to set projections and rates that allocate more to fish and wildlife.	BPA: § 4(h)(11)(A) governs management/operation of facilities, not ratemaking; § 7 (16 U.S.C. § 839e) contains detailed ratemaking rules and already addresses equitable allocation of costs.	Court: § 4(h)(11)(A) does not extend to ratemaking/IPR. Because ratemaking is governed in detail by § 7, the separate § 4(h)(11)(A) duties were not intended to impose additional ratemaking requirements; petition fails on the merits.

Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 117 F.3d 1520 (9th Cir. 1997) (standing and scope of § 4(h)(11)(A)’s equitable‑treatment obligation analyzed)
Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 477 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2007) (overview of BPA duties and operations)
Golden Nw. Aluminum, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 501 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2007) (rate cases are not the forum for selecting specific fish and wildlife measures)
Ass’n of Pub. Agency Customers, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 126 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1997) (procedures and nature of BPA ratemaking described)
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (standing elements, injury in fact and redressability principles)
Department of Education v. Brown, 143 S. Ct. 2343 (2023) (limits on traceability where plaintiffs rely on speculative links between alternative agency actions)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (attenuated chains of causation defeat standing)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing fundamentals for environmental plaintiffs)
Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (aesthetic/recreational injuries can support standing)
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation v. Bonneville Power Admin., 342 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2003) (deference to BPA interpretations of NWPA noted)
Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937 (9th Cir. 2021) (standard for plausibly alleging traceable injury)