Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Bonneville Power Administration , 477 F.3d 668 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                  FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL               
    DEFENSE CENTER, PUBLIC
    EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
    RESPONSIBILITY; NORTHWEST
    SPORTFISHING INDUSTRY
    ASSOCIATION,
    Petitioners,
    NORTHWEST POWER AND                      No. 06-70430
    CONSERVATION COUNCIL,
    Intervenor,
    v.
    BONNEVILLE POWER
    ADMINISTRATION,
    Respondent.
    
    CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND               
    BANDS OF THE YAKAMA INDIAN
    NATION,
    Petitioner,
    
    No. 06-71182
    v.                         OPINION
    BONNEVILLE POWER
    ADMINISTRATION,
    Respondent.
    
    On Petition for Review of a Final Action of the
    Bonneville Power Administration
    Argued and Submitted
    September 12, 2006—Portland, Oregon
    939
    940   NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    Filed January 24, 2007
    Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, Barry G. Silverman, and
    Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.
    Opinion by Judge Gould
    942   NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    COUNSEL
    Stephanie M. Parent, Pacific Environmental Advocacy Cen-
    ter, Portland, Oregon, for petitioners Northwest Environmen-
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER               943
    tal Defense Center, Public Employees for Environmental
    Responsibility, and Northwest Sportfishing Industry Associa-
    tion.
    Tim Weaver, Law Office of Tim Weaver, Yakima, Washing-
    ton, for petitioner Confederated Tribes and Bands of the
    Yakama Nation.
    David J. Adler, Special Assistant United States Attorney and
    Stephen J. Odell, Assistant United States Attorney, Portland,
    Oregon, for respondent Bonneville Power Administration.
    John Shurts, Northwest Power and Conservation Council,
    Portland, Oregon, for intervenor Northwest Power and Con-
    servation Council.
    David J. Cummings, Nez Perce Tribe Office of Legal Coun-
    sel, Lapwai, Idaho, for amicus Nez Perce Tribe.
    Howard G. Arnett, Karnopp Petersen, LLP, Bend, Oregon, for
    amicus Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation
    of Oregon.
    Christopher B. Leahy, Fredericks, Pelcyger & Hester, LLC,
    Louisville, Colorado, for amicus Confederated Tribes of the
    Umatilla Reservation.
    OPINION
    GOULD, Circuit Judge:
    Salmon and steelhead1 are two of the great natural
    1
    A steelhead is a rainbow trout which has spent part of its life at sea.
    Alaska Dep’t of Fish & Game, Steelhead Trout, http://
    www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/fish/steelhd.php (last visited Jan. 17,
    2007).
    944    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    resources of the Columbia River. Their continued existence
    has been threatened by the construction of dams to capture a
    third great natural resource of the Columbia River, its water
    power. As these dams were constructed, the number of
    salmon and steelhead migrating up the Columbia River to
    reproduce at its headwaters dropped. At one time, an esti-
    mated ten to sixteen million adult fish returned to the Colum-
    bia River basin each year. Today, only about one million fish
    return for spawning that is essential to the species’ survival in
    the Columbia River system.
    In response to declining salmon and steelhead runs, Con-
    gress passed the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation
    Act of 1980. The Act created the Northwest Power and Con-
    servation Council, an interstate compact agency, and directs
    the Council to prepare programs to protect and enhance the
    fish and wildlife of the Columbia River basin while also
    assuring the Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, eco-
    nomical, and reliable power supply. The Act also instructs the
    Bonneville Power Administration, the federal agency that
    operates the dams on the Columbia River, to use its authority
    in a manner consistent with the programs developed by the
    Council.
    In 1982, the Council called for the creation of what would
    eventually become the Fish Passage Center. The Fish Passage
    Center provides technical assistance and information to fish
    and wildlife agencies, Indian tribes, and the general public on
    matters related to juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead
    passage through the Columbia River and its tributaries. Since
    1987, the Bonneville Power Administration has funded the
    Fish Passage Center, and the Fish Passage Center has gath-
    ered, analyzed, and publicly-disseminated data regarding fish
    passage. The Bonneville Power Administration has used this
    information, in consultation with fisheries and Indian tribes
    and in conjunction with its control over water flow past the
    dams, to help improve the survival rates of fish migrating up
    and down the Columbia River.
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER        945
    In light of language in two 2005 congressional committee
    reports, however, the Bonneville Power Administration
    decided to transfer the functions performed by the Fish Pas-
    sage Center to Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory and
    Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. In this consoli-
    dated case, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Public
    Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Northwest
    Sportsfishing Industry Association, and the Confederated
    Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (collectively, “peti-
    tioners”) petition for review of the Bonneville Power Admin-
    istration’s action transferring the functions of the Fish Passage
    Center to Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory and Pacific
    States Marine Fisheries Commission and creating a new
    model Fish Passage Center (“new model”).
    I
    A
    Created by the Bonneville Project Act of 1937, 
    16 U.S.C. §§ 832
    -832m, the Bonneville Power Administration (“BPA”)
    is a federal agency within the Department of Energy. BPA
    sells and transmits wholesale electricity from thirty-one fed-
    eral hydroelectric plants, one non-federal nuclear power plant
    in Hanford, Washington, and other non-federal power plants
    in the Columbia River basin. About BPA Home,
    http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/About_BPA/ (last visited Jan.
    17, 2007). BPA’s customers include federal agencies, public
    and private utility companies, and direct service industrial
    customers. See Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. BPA, 
    261 F.3d 843
    , 845 (9th Cir. 2001). BPA does not receive annual
    appropriations, as is the case with most federal agencies.
    Rather, the revenue that BPA obtains from its sales and trans-
    mission of electricity is deposited in the Bonneville Power
    Administration fund (“BPA fund”). 16 U.S.C. § 838i(a). BPA
    then uses the fund to finance its operations. Id. § 838i(b).
    As a self-financing power marketing agency, BPA must set
    its prices high enough to cover its costs. Indus. Customers of
    946     NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    Nw. Utilities v. BPA, 
    408 F.3d 638
    , 641 (9th Cir. 2005); Ass’n
    of Public Agency Customers, Inc. v. BPA, 
    126 F.3d 1158
    ,
    1164 (9th Cir. 1997) [hereinafter APAC]. BPA must also sell
    power to consumers “at the lowest possible rates.” 16 U.S.C.
    § 838g. At the same time, BPA must be environmentally con-
    scious, supporting energy conservation and protecting the fish
    and wildlife of the Columbia River basin. APAC, 
    126 F.3d at 1164
    ; see, e.g., 16 U.S.C. § 839b(h)(10)-(11) (providing that
    BPA must use the BPA fund and its statutory authority in a
    manner that protects and enhances fish and wildlife).
    In 1980, to assist BPA in balancing its responsibilities to
    provide low-cost energy while protecting fish and wildlife,
    Congress passed the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and
    Conservation Act (“Northwest Power Act” or “Act”), Pub. L.
    No. 96-501, 
    94 Stat. 2697
     (1980) (codified at 
    16 U.S.C. §§ 839
    -839h). The Act authorized state governments to form
    what is now called the Northwest Power and Conservation
    Council (“Council”), an interstate compact agency2 comprised
    of members from Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
    16 U.S.C. § 839b(a)(2)(B); see Seattle Master Builders Ass’n
    v. Pac. Nw. Elec. Power & Conservation Council, 
    786 F.2d 1359
    , 1366 (9th Cir. 1986) (upholding the constitutionality of
    the Council). Each state has agreed to participate in the Coun-
    cil, see 
    Idaho Code § 61-1201
    ; 
    Mont. Code Ann. § 90-4-401
    ;
    
    Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.803
    ; 
    Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 43
    .52A.010, and has enacted legislation authorizing its gov-
    ernor to appoint two members to the Council, see 
    Idaho Code § 61-1202
    ; 
    Mont. Code Ann. § 90-4-402
    ; 
    Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.805
    ; 
    Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 43
    .52A.030.
    2
    For a landmark discussion of the use of the Compact Clause, article I,
    section 10, clause 3 of the Constitution, to permit agreements by states on
    a regional basis, including the need to do so to promote sound develop-
    ment of electrical power and conservation of natural resources, see Felix
    Frankfurter & James M. Landis, The Compact Clause of the Constitution
    —A Study In Interstate Adjustments, 
    34 Yale L.J. 685
     (1925).
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER             947
    The Act charges the Council with two tasks fundamental to
    this case: (1) preparing and periodically reviewing a regional
    conservation and electric power plan to aid BPA in acquiring
    and developing power resources (“Power Plan” or “Plan”) and
    (2) preparing and periodically reviewing a program to protect,
    mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife (“Fish and Wildlife
    Program” or “Program”). 16 U.S.C. § 839b(a)(1).
    The current composition of the Council reflects the varied
    constituencies it serves. The Council is chaired by an expert
    in natural resource economics. Many Council members are
    former business persons or practicing attorneys. Indian tribes
    and fishing enthusiasts are also represented on the Council.
    Four of the eight current Council members have served as
    state senators or state representatives in the Pacific Northwest.3
    The Council submits each project proposed for funding
    under its Fish and Wildlife Program for review by the Inde-
    pendent Scientific Review Panel, an eleven-member panel of
    independent scientists appointed by the Council from the rec-
    ommendations of the National Academy of Scientists. See id.
    § 839b(h)(10)(D). The Act obliges BPA to consult with state
    fish and wildlife agencies and Indian tribes in carrying out its
    responsibilities under the Act. See id. § 839b(h)(11)(B). In
    short, the Act “establishes an innovative system of coopera-
    tive federalism under which the states, within limits provided
    in the Act, can represent their shared interests in the mainte-
    nance and development of a power supply in the Pacific
    Northwest and in related environmental concerns.” Seattle
    Master Builders, 
    786 F.2d at 1366
    .
    B
    Section 839b(h)(10)(A) of the Act explains how the views
    of the Council guide BPA’s actions. It provides:
    3
    For biographical information on the Council’s current members, see
    Council Members, http://www.nwcouncil.org/contact/members.asp (last
    visited Jan. 17, 2007).
    948     NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    The Administrator [of BPA] shall use the Bonneville
    Power Administration fund and the authorities avail-
    able to the Administrator under this chapter and
    other laws administered by the Administrator to pro-
    tect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife to the
    extent affected by the development and operation of
    any hydroelectric project of the Columbia River and
    its tributaries in a manner consistent with the plan,
    if in existence, the program adopted by the Council
    under this subsection, and the purposes of this chap-
    ter.
    16 U.S.C. § 839b(h)(10)(A). In other words, the Act requires
    BPA’s fish and wildlife protection, mitigation, and enhance-
    ment actions to be consistent with (1) the Council’s Power
    Plan; (2) the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program; and (3) the
    purposes of the Act.4 Section 839b(h)(10)(A) is thus referred
    to as the Act’s “consistency requirement.”
    The Council adopted its first Fish and Wildlife Program in
    1982. Since 1982, the Council has reviewed and reformulated
    its Program five times. The current version of the Program
    was adopted in 2000 (“2000 Program”) and amended in 2003
    by the Mainstem Amendments (“2003 Amendments”).
    4
    In 
    16 U.S.C. § 839
    , Congress listed the purposes of the Act: (1) to
    encourage electricity conservation and the development of renewable
    resources in the Pacific Northwest; (2) “to assure the Pacific Northwest of
    an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply”; (3) to
    allow the States, local governments, and citizens of the Pacific Northwest
    (including fish and wildlife agencies and Indian tribes) to participate in the
    development of regional energy conservation plans, plans for renewable
    resources, and plans for environmental protection and enhancement; (4) to
    ensure that BPA’s customers cover the costs necessary to meet the
    region’s electricity needs; (5) to ensure that non-federal entities continue
    to regulate, plan, conserve, supply, and distribute electricity; and (6) “to
    protect, mitigate and enhance the fish and wildlife . . . of the Columbia
    River and its tributaries.”
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER       949
    In preparing the 2000 Program, the Council consulted with
    the Pacific Northwest’s fish and wildlife agencies, Indian
    tribes, and other interested members of the public, as required
    by the Act. See 
    id.
     § 839b(g). After considering these parties’
    recommendations, the Council prepared a draft Program and
    conducted a public comment period before preparing the final
    version of the 2000 Program. The Program “expresses goals
    and objectives for the entire [Columbia River] basin based on
    a scientific foundation of ecological principles.” Nw. Power
    & Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Fish and
    Wildlife Program 9 (2000) [hereinafter 2000 Program],
    available at http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/2000/2000-19/
    FullReport.pdf. These objectives apply to all fish and wildlife
    projects implemented in the basin. Id. The objectives crucial
    to this case include mitigating the adverse effects to salmon
    and steelhead caused by the Columbia River’s hydropower
    system and ensuring sufficient populations of salmon and
    steelhead for both Indian tribal-trust and treaty-right fishing
    and non-tribal fishing. Id. at 16. A goal of the Program is to
    increase total adult salmon and steelhead runs on the Colum-
    bia River from about one million annually today to an average
    of five million annually by 2025. Id. at 7, 17.
    C
    The Fish Passage Center (“FPC”) has been a part of the
    Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program since 1982. Originally
    called the Water Budget Center, it consisted of two managers
    who oversaw the annual water budget the Council adopted as
    part of the Program. The water budget provided for additional
    releases of water from federal dams each spring to facilitate
    the migration of juvenile salmon and steelhead to the Pacific
    Ocean. The Water Budget Center’s two managers recom-
    mended to federal agencies how they could use the water bud-
    get to improve the survival rate of fish passing through the
    dams during their downstream migration. See Pub. Utility
    Dist. No. 1 v. BPA, 
    947 F.2d 386
    , 389 (9th Cir. 1991) (dis-
    950     NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    cussing FPC’s oversight of the annual water budget contained
    in the 1987 Program).
    The FPC’s responsibilities under the Program have
    expanded considerably since its days as the Water Budget
    Center. The Council’s 1987 Program provided that BPA
    “shall fund the establishment and operation of a Fish Passage
    Center.” The Council envisioned that the FPC would assist
    the dams’ fish passage managers in planning and implement-
    ing a smolt5 monitoring program, developing and implement-
    ing flow and spill requests, and monitoring and analyzing
    research results to assist in implementing the water budget
    and spill planning.
    The Council’s 2000 Program “continues the operation of
    the Fish Passage Center.” 2000 Program, supra, at 28. The
    2003 Amendments to the Program elaborate on the Council’s
    vision of the FPC’s role, stating that “[t]he mainstem plan
    calls for the continued operation of the Fish Passage Center,”
    and listing specific tasks the Council expects the FPC to per-
    form in helping implement the water management measures
    in the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. Nw. Power &
    Conservation Council, Mainstem Amendments to the
    Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 27 (2003)
    [hereinafter 2003 Amendments], available at http://
    www.nwcouncil.org/library/2003/2003-11.pdf.
    The 2003 Amendments provide that “[t]he primary purpose
    of the [FPC] is to provide technical assistance and informa-
    tion to fish and wildlife agencies and [Indian] tribes in partic-
    ular, and the public in general, on matters related to juvenile
    and adult salmon and steelhead passage through the mainstem
    hydrosystem.” Id. The 2003 Amendments require the FPC to
    (1) plan and implement a smolt monitoring program; (2)
    5
    A smolt is a juvenile salmon in the stage where it becomes covered
    with silvery scales and first embarks on its journey to salt water. See John
    V. Byrne, Salmon Is King—Or Is It?, 
    16 Envtl. L. 343
    , 352-53 (1986).
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER                951
    gather, organize, analyze, store, and make widely-available
    monitoring and research information about fish passage and
    the implementation of water management and fish passage
    measures contained in the Council’s Program; (3) provide
    technical information to assist fish and wildlife agencies and
    Indian tribes requesting the federal dams to spill water; and
    (4) provide technical assistance to ensure the recommenda-
    tions for river operations avoid conflicts between anadromous6
    and resident fish. 
    Id. at 27-28
    .
    To carry out these responsibilities, the FPC monitors more
    than twenty dams and fish traps; collects data on chinook,
    steelhead, coho, shad, sockeye, pink salmon, and lamprey;
    and monitors river conditions, including temperature, dis-
    solved gases, fish hatchery releases, and dam flows and spills.
    The FPC makes information it gathers available on its web-
    site. Fishery managers and Indian tribes use this information
    to make flow and spill requests to BPA and the operators of
    the dams, who, by controlling the water flow past the dams,
    can improve the survival rates of fish migrating downstream.7
    6
    An anadromous fish lives in the sea but breeds in freshwater. See 
    50 C.F.R. § 401.2
    (g) (defining anadromous fish as “[a]quatic, gill breathing,
    vertebrate animals bearing paired fins which migrate to and spawn in fresh
    water, but which spend part of their life in an oceanic environment”); see
    also Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks of the North
    Pacific Ocean, art. II.1, annex pt. I, Feb. 11, 1992, T.I.A.S. No. 11,465
    (classifying the following species as anadromous fish: chum salmon, coho
    salmon, pink salmon, sockeye salmon, chinook salmon, cherry salmon,
    and steelhead trout); 
    16 U.S.C. §§ 5001-12
     (implementing the Conven-
    tion).
    7
    Fish migrating down the stream of a dammed river encounter a series
    of dangers. The fish must navigate the reservoir of standing water main-
    tained behind the dam. The standing water slows the migration of the fish
    and exposes the fish to predators. After navigating the reservoir, the fish
    must then pass the dam safely. Fish may pass a dam by being spilled over
    the dam, by passing through the turbines of the dam, or by being trans-
    ported around the dam. See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries
    Serv., 
    422 F.3d 782
    , 788-89 (9th Cir. 2005). The data gathered by the FPC
    is used to measure the success that fish have passing dams.
    952    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    From the administrative record it appears that the FPC
    operates independently of BPA and the Council. However,
    nothing in the record indicates that the FPC is a distinct legal
    entity. BPA funds the FPC through grants administered by
    master contracts with the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
    Commission (“Pacific States”). BPA specifies tasks for the
    FPC to perform in annual statements of work within BPA’s
    master contract with Pacific States.
    D
    Conflict between environmental and energy interests in the
    Columbia River basin has on occasion played out in the court-
    room, as shown in BPA-related cases decided by us. See, e.g.,
    Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation v.
    BPA, 
    342 F.3d 924
     (9th Cir. 2003); Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v.
    BPA, 
    117 F.3d 1520
     (9th Cir. 1997); Nw. Res. Info. Ctr., Inc.
    v. Nw. Power Planning Council, 
    35 F.3d 1371
     (9th Cir. 1994)
    [hereinafter, NRIC]; Nw. Res. Info. Ctr., Inc. v. Nat’l Marine
    Fisheries Serv., 
    25 F.3d 872
     (9th Cir. 1994). In this case,
    however, an issue over how to balance fish survival and
    recovery with the inexpensive production of hydropower was
    raised in the legislative committee process.
    In June 2005, the United States Senate Appropriations Sub-
    committee on Energy and Water Development issued its
    report on House Resolution 2419, the resolution that would
    become the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
    Act of 2006 (“2006 Appropriations Act”). The subcommittee
    report stated that BPA “may make no new obligations from
    the Bonneville Power Administration Fund in support of the
    Fish Passage Center” because “there are universities in the
    Pacific Northwest that already collect fish data for the region”
    and can carry out the FPC’s responsibilities “at a savings to
    the region’s ratepayers.” S. Rep. No. 109-84, at 179 (2005).
    On November 19, 2005, Congress passed the 2006 Appro-
    priations Act. Pub. L. No. 109-103, 
    119 Stat. 2247
     (2005).
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER               953
    The 2006 Appropriations Act makes no reference to the FPC.
    The Conference Committee Report of the Congress accompa-
    nying the Act, however, states that
    The Bonneville Power Administration may make no
    new obligations in support of the Fish Passage Cen-
    ter. The conferees call upon Bonneville Power
    Administration and the Northwest Power and Con-
    servation Council to ensure that an orderly transfer
    of the Fish Passage Center functions (warehouse of
    smolt monitoring data, routine data analysis and
    reporting and coordination of the smolt monitoring
    program) occurs within 120 days of enactment of
    this legislation. These functions shall be transferred
    to other existing and capable entities in the region in
    a manner that ensures seamless continuity of activi-
    ties.
    H.R. Rep. No. 109-275, at 174 (2005) (Conf. Rep.).
    On December 8, 2005, in response to the committee
    reports, BPA issued a “Program Solicitation for Key Func-
    tions previously performed by the Fish Passage Center”
    (“Program Solicitation”). The Program Solicitation states that
    “[i]n November 2005, the US Congress passed legislation
    (House Report 109-275), which forbids BPA from making
    additional obligations in support of the Fish Passage Center.”
    The Program Solicitation further states that “BPA has decided
    to implement this requirement thru [sic] the issuance of this
    Program Solicitation.”
    BPA received five responses to its Program Solicitation.
    On January 26, 2006, BPA announced, in a press release, its
    decision to award contracts for the functions formerly per-
    formed by the FPC to Battelle Pacific Northwest National
    Laboratory (“Battelle”) and Pacific States.8 The new model
    8
    Pacific States is the entity that now contracts with BPA to receive the
    grants that Pacific States in turn uses to fund the operations of the FPC.
    See supra at 952.
    954    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    divides between Battelle and Pacific States a number of the
    functions that had been wholly the responsibility of the FPC.
    According to the press release, under this new model, Pacific
    States will “coordinate implementation of the Smolt Monitor-
    ing Program, manage the real-time database of the monitoring
    program and related data, and perform routine analysis and
    reporting of that data.” On the other hand, Battelle will “serve
    a coordinating function, relying on experts in the field to pro-
    vide in-depth analysis of the data.” Battelle executed its con-
    tract with BPA on February 28, 2006, and Pacific States
    executed its contract on March 16, 2006.
    E
    Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Public Employ-
    ees for Environmental Responsibility, and Northwest Sports-
    fishing Industry Association (collectively, “NEDC”) filed a
    petition for review with us on January 23, 2006 and an
    amended petition for review on February 6, 2006, challenging
    BPA’s decision to transfer the functions of the FPC to Pacific
    States and Battelle, alleging that the transfer of the functions
    of the FPC ran afoul of BPA’s duties under the Northwest
    Power Act. The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the
    Yakama Nation (“Yakama”) filed a petition for review on
    March 3, 2006, also challenging BPA’s decision to transfer
    the functions of the FPC.
    On March 17, 2006, we granted the petitioners’ request for
    a stay pending our review of BPA’s action. We ordered BPA
    to “continue, pending resolution of [the petition for review]
    and/or further order of the court, its existing contractual
    arrangement to fund and support the Fish Passage Center
    under the existing terms and conditions.” On April 7, 2006,
    we consolidated NEDC’s petition with the petition filed by
    Yakama.
    The petitioners ask us to set aside BPA’s decision to trans-
    fer the functions of the FPC and to use our equitable authority
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER       955
    to order BPA to fund the FPC. Before we address the merits
    of their petitions for review, we must determine whether we
    have jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
    
    523 U.S. 83
    , 94-95 (1998).
    II
    BPA raises two challenges to our jurisdiction. First, BPA
    argues that we lack statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate the
    petitioners’ challenge to BPA’s decision to transfer the func-
    tions of the FPC because BPA’s December 8, 2005 Program
    Solicitation is not a “final action” of BPA. See 16 U.S.C.
    § 839f(e)(5) (permitting judicial review of “final actions” of
    BPA and the Council). Second, BPA asserts that the petition-
    ers do not have standing to challenge BPA’s action in this
    case because a decision in favor of the petitioners will not be
    likely to redress the petitioners’ injury, as required for us to
    exercise jurisdiction under Article III of the United States
    Constitution. We consider these challenges to our subject-
    matter jurisdiction de novo. Indus. Customers of Nw. Utils.,
    
    408 F.3d at 644
    .
    A
    [1] The Northwest Power Act vests us with original and
    exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over challenges to “final
    actions and decisions taken pursuant to [the Act] by the
    Administrator [of BPA] or the Council, or the implementation
    of such final actions.” 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(5). We have inter-
    preted § 839f(e)(5)’s judicial review provision “with a broad
    view of this Court’s jurisdiction.” Transmission Agency of N.
    Cal. v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 
    295 F.3d 918
    , 925 (9th Cir.
    2002) (internal quotation omitted).
    [2] BPA argues that we lack jurisdiction over the petition-
    ers’ challenge to the December 8, 2005 Program Solicitation
    because the Program Solicitation was not a “final action.” But
    in its brief BPA concedes that its January 26, 2006 decision,
    956    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    selecting the successors to the FPC, is a final agency action
    subject to judicial review under § 839f(e)(5). While BPA’s
    issuance of the Program Solicitation alone might not have
    been a final action subject to our review, BPA’s initial deci-
    sion to create a new model Fish Passage Center and to issue
    the Program Solicitation was part of the process BPA used to
    set its course, leading to what BPA concedes was its final
    action transferring the functions of the FPC to Pacific States
    and Battelle. Because both NEDC’s and Yakama’s petitions
    for review directly challenge the January 26, 2006 final
    action, and BPA’s December 8, 2005 action was simply a part
    of the process that led to BPA’s final action, we have statu-
    tory jurisdiction over both NEDC’s and Yakama’s petitions
    for review.
    B
    BPA next argues that we lack Article III jurisdiction over
    these petitions for review. To have constitutional standing to
    challenge BPA’s action, the petitioners must satisfy a familiar
    three-part test established by the Supreme Court. First, the
    petitioners must have suffered an “injury in fact” which is (a)
    concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent. Lujan
    v. Defenders of Wildlife, 
    504 U.S. 555
    , 560 (1992). Second,
    the petitioners must show a causal connection between the
    injury and the conduct complained of. 
    Id.
     Finally, “it must be
    likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will
    be redressed by a favorable decision.” 
    Id. at 561
     (internal quo-
    tations omitted). BPA argues that the petitioners have failed
    to satisfy the final element of the test, claiming that the rem-
    edy that the petitioners seek is beyond our authority.
    The petitioners ask that we set aside BPA’s final action
    transferring the functions of the FPC to Pacific States and
    Battelle and order BPA to continue the FPC’s funding until
    it can reconsider, in accordance with any opinion of this court,
    its decision to transfer the functions of the FPC. BPA con-
    tends that we have no authority to order BPA to fund the FPC,
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER                 957
    making it impossible for us to redress any injury suffered by
    the petitioners and leaving the petitioners without standing.
    BPA points out that it funded the FPC through an annual
    grant that expired and was renewed every year. BPA argues
    that to order it to continue to fund the FPC requires us to force
    BPA to contract against its will, an action beyond the author-
    ity of the judiciary.
    [3] The cases BPA relies on are cases stating the unremark-
    able proposition of contract law that a court will not create
    new obligations that do not exist within the four corners of a
    contract. See Imperial Fire Ins. Co. of London v. Coos
    County, 
    151 U.S. 452
    , 462 (1894) (rejecting jury instructions
    contrary to the unambiguous language of an insurance pol-
    icy); City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Waterworks Co.,
    
    142 U.S. 79
    , 91 (1891) (refusing to construe a decision of the
    Louisiana Supreme Court as creating a new contract between
    the parties); Jaeger v. Canadian Bank of Commerce, 
    327 F.2d 743
    , 745 (9th Cir. 1964) (stating that courts have no power to
    make new contracts); Peterson v. Noots, 
    255 F. 875
    , 880 (9th
    Cir. 1919) (refusing to read additional provision into a liqui-
    dated damages clause where the liquidated damages clause
    was unambiguous). In a contract case between two private
    parties, our remedial power is no doubt limited to enforcing
    the obligations to which the private parties agreed. See 25
    Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 67:30 (4th ed.
    2006) (stating that a court, in granting equitable relief “is cur-
    tailed to the extent that it must generally act within the frame-
    work of the contract”).
    [4] This case presents a different situation. Rather than ask-
    ing us to remedy a violation of private law (e.g., a breach of
    contract), the petitioners ask us to remedy the violation of a
    public law—the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)9—by
    9
    Public law is the body of law regulating relations between private par-
    ties and the government and regulating the structure and operation of the
    government itself. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1267 (8th ed. 2004). Public
    law consists of the fields of constitutional law, criminal law, and adminis-
    trative law. Id.
    958     NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    contending that BPA acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and con-
    trary to law in transferring the functions of the FPC. See 
    5 U.S.C. § 706
    (2)(A); see also 
    16 U.S.C. § 839
    (f)(e)(2) (direct-
    ing that courts review final actions of BPA under the APA).
    When a public law has been violated, we are not bound to
    stay within the terms of a private agreement negotiated by the
    parties, and may exercise our equitable powers to ensure com-
    pliance with the law. See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Espy, 
    45 F.3d 1337
    , 1343 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The court’s decision to
    grant or deny injunctive or declaratory relief under [the] APA
    is controlled by principles of equity.”).
    Moreover, “[w]here the public interest is involved, ‘equita-
    ble powers assume an even broader and more flexible charac-
    ter than when only a private controversy is at stake.’ ” United
    States v. Alisal Water Corp., 
    431 F.3d 643
    , 654 (9th Cir.
    2005) (quoting Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 
    328 U.S. 395
    ,
    398 (1946)). Unless Congress provides otherwise, “ ‘[c]ourts
    of equity may, and frequently do, go much farther both to
    give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest
    than they are accustomed to go when only private interests are
    involved.’ ” United States v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of L.A.,
    
    575 F.2d 222
    , 228 (9th Cir. 1978) (quoting United States v.
    First Nat’l City Bank, 
    379 U.S. 378
    , 383 (1965)).
    For example, in FTC v. H.N. Singer, Inc., 
    668 F.2d 1107
    ,
    1109 (9th Cir. 1982), the FTC sought a permanent injunction
    under the Federal Trade Commission Act. In comparing the
    scope of the equitable powers of federal courts in private law
    matters versus public law matters, we wrote:
    “Unless otherwise provided by statute, all the inher-
    ent equitable powers of the District Court are avail-
    able for the proper and complete exercise of [its]
    jurisdiction. And since the public interest is involved
    in a proceeding of this nature, those equitable pow-
    ers assume an even broader and more flexible char-
    acter than when only a private controversy is at
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER               959
    stake. Power is thereby resident in the District Court,
    in exercising [its] jurisdiction, to do equity and to
    mould each decree to the necessities of the particular
    case.”
    
    Id. at 1112
     (quoting Porter, 
    328 U.S. at 398
    ) (citation and
    internal quotation omitted). We concluded that, in the absence
    of congressional directive, federal courts retain broad equita-
    ble powers in public law matters, including the “authority to
    grant any ancillary relief necessary to accomplish complete
    justice.” Id. at 1113. We thus affirmed the district court’s
    injunction freezing the assets of certain defendants. Id.
    [5] Section 706(2) of the APA gives us the equitable power
    to “set aside” BPA’s action transferring the functions of the
    FPC, if we determine that BPA’s action was arbitrary, capri-
    cious, or contrary to law. See 
    5 U.S.C. § 706
    (2)(A); Tinoqui-
    Chalola Council of Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians v.
    U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 
    232 F.3d 1300
    , 1305 (9th Cir. 2000)
    (holding that, under the APA, a court has authority to order
    recision of a contract for sale if the federal agency “acted in
    excess of statutory authority or without observance of the pro-
    cedures required by law”). As shown by our prior order man-
    dating that BPA continue to fund the FPC until we rule on the
    merits of the petitions for review, this court, as a court of
    equity conducting judicial review under the APA, has broad
    powers to order “mandatory affirmative relief,”10 Adams v.
    Witmer, 
    271 F.2d 29
    , 38 (9th Cir. 1958), if such relief is “nec-
    essary to accomplish complete justice,” H.N. Singer, Inc., 668
    10
    In Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 
    542 U.S. 55
    , 64
    (2004), the Supreme Court held that, when a party seeks redress because
    an agency has failed to act, a court may only require the agency to perform
    non-discretionary actions that the agency is required by law to undertake.
    Norton is distinguishable from the instant case because Norton dealt with
    the power of courts to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld” under
    
    5 U.S.C. § 706
    (1). The petitioners here do not seek redress for agency
    inaction under § 706(1), but rather challenge a final agency action under
    the § 706(2) and the Northwest Power Act.
    960    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    F.2d at 1113. Stated another way, if we conclude that BPA
    violated the APA by acting arbitrarily, capriciously, or con-
    trary to law, we have the ability and indeed the juristic duty
    to remedy BPA’s violation. Viewed in this light, we are confi-
    dent that we retain the power to require BPA to fund the FPC,
    at least for a period of time in which BPA can reconsider its
    action in accordance with our opinion. Because we have the
    power to redress the injury suffered by the petitioners if they
    prevail on their legal theory, we hold that, under Lujan, the
    petitioners have standing to pursue their petitions for review.
    III
    As we discussed above, the Northwest Power Act dictates
    that our review of BPA’s final agency action is governed by
    § 706 of the APA, 
    5 U.S.C. § 706
    . 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(2).
    Under the APA, we must set aside BPA’s action if it was “ar-
    bitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
    accordance with law.” 
    5 U.S.C. § 706
    (2)(A); see NRIC, 
    35 F.3d at 1383
    . The petitioners contend that BPA violated the
    APA in two ways. First, the petitioners contend that BPA
    acted “not in accordance with law” by transferring the func-
    tions of the FPC based on its belief that language in a commit-
    tee report had a binding legal effect on the agency. Second,
    the petitioners argue that BPA acted arbitrarily and capri-
    ciously because it did not employ a rational decision-making
    process in deciding to transfer the functions of the FPC to
    Pacific States and Battelle. We address those arguments in
    turn.
    A
    The petitioners first contend that BPA’s decision to transfer
    the functions of the FPC was “not in accordance with law,”
    
    5 U.S.C. § 706
    (2), because BPA gave legally-binding effect
    to a passage of legislative history. BPA counters by asserting
    that it engaged in the rational decision-making process that
    the APA requires by observing the language contained in the
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER       961
    congressional committee reports regarding the 2006 Appro-
    priations Act and implementing the directives in the reports.
    1
    Though the text of the 2006 Appropriations Act itself made
    no reference to the FPC, its accompanying conference com-
    mittee report stated that “[t]he Bonneville Power Administra-
    tion may make no new obligations in support of the Fish
    Passage Center.” H.R. Rep. No. 109-275, at 174 (2005)
    (Conf. Rep.). The committee report language also instructed
    BPA and the Council “to ensure an orderly transfer of the
    Fish Passage Center functions . . . within 120 days of enact-
    ment of this legislation.” 
    Id.
     The report issued by the Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Develop-
    ment on House Resolution 2419, the resolution that would
    become the 2006 Appropriations Act, contained similar lan-
    guage, indicating that BPA “may make no new obligations
    from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund in support of
    the Fish Passage Center.” S. Rep. No. 109-84, at 179 (2005).
    It is an understatement to say that BPA gave great weight
    to these reports; more accurate is the observation that BPA
    slavishly deferred to what it thought the reports commanded.
    As one example, BPA’s Program Solicitation states that “[i]n
    November 2005, the US Congress passed legislation (House
    Report 109-275), which forbids BPA from making additional
    obligations in support of the Fish Passage Center.” A Septem-
    ber 20, 2005 email written by a Vice President of BPA, Greg-
    ory K. Delwiche, also reflects BPA’s view of the importance
    of the Senate subcommittee report. Michelle DeHart, Man-
    ager of the FPC, had asked Delwiche his thoughts on the
    future of the FPC. After Delwiche responded that he would
    have to wait and see “how this is playing out in our nation’s
    capitol [sic],” DeHart replied, “I was really not thinking about
    talking about the language [in the subcommittee report] but in
    getting an idea from you as to what your thinking was on the
    Fish Passage Center in the future.” Delwiche responded:
    962    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    “[T]he reason the language is important is that what my think-
    ing is on the Fish Passage Center really isn’t relevant, what’s
    relevant is what the direction from Wash DC [sic] is. We are
    merely the implementer of guidance from back there.”
    Delwiche again indicated his belief that BPA had no choice
    but to follow the committee report language in a declaration
    filed in our court, characterizing the language in the commit-
    tee reports as “unambiguous Congressional direction.” Del-
    wiche explained BPA’s decision to transfer the FPC by stat-
    ing that “I did not think that, as an Executive Branch agency,
    accountable to Congress, BPA could ignore this unambiguous
    Congressional direction.” Finally, in BPA’s brief, BPA states
    that it interpreted the conference committee report as “the
    unambiguously expressed will of the Congress.”
    In summary, BPA treated the committee report language as
    if the language placed a legal obligation on BPA to transfer
    the functions of the FPC. However, as we explain in the next
    section, committee report language unconnected to the text of
    an enacted statute has no binding legal import, and it was con-
    trary to law for BPA to base its decision to transfer the FPC
    on its belief that “the US Congress passed legislation (House
    Report 109-275) . . . forbid[ding] BPA from making addi-
    tional obligations in support of the Fish Passage Center.”
    2
    The APA empowers us to set aside an agency decision that
    is contrary to governing law. 
    5 U.S.C. § 706
    (2); see Lands
    Council v. Powell, 
    395 F.3d 1019
    , 1026 (9th Cir. 2005). The
    case law of the Supreme Court and our court establishes that
    legislative history, untethered to text in an enacted statute, has
    no compulsive legal effect. It was thus contrary to law for
    BPA to conclude, from committee report language alone, that
    it was bound to transfer the functions of the FPC.
    In Shannon v. United States, 
    512 U.S. 573
    , 579 (1994), the
    petitioner, a criminal defendant, argued that the district court
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER         963
    erred by failing to instruct the jury about the consequences of
    finding him not guilty by reason of insanity. The petitioner
    argued that Congress, in enacting the Insanity Defense
    Reform Act of 1984 (“IDRA”), intended to require that dis-
    trict courts instruct the jury as to the consequences of an
    insanity acquittal. 
    Id. at 583
    . The text of IDRA was silent on
    the matter. 
    Id. at 580
    ; see 
    18 U.S.C. § 4242
    (b) (stating that
    “the jury shall be instructed to find . . . the defendant—(1)
    guilty; (2) not guilty; or (3) not guilty only by reason of insan-
    ity”). In support of his argument that IDRA required the dis-
    trict court to instruct the jury about the consequences of an
    insanity acquittal, the petitioner in Shannon pointed to lan-
    guage in the Senate Report on IDRA, which stated that “[t]he
    Committee endorses the procedure used in the District of
    Columbia whereby the jury, in a case in which the insanity
    defense has been raised, may be instructed on the effect of a
    verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.” Shannon, 
    512 U.S. at 583
     (internal quotation omitted).
    [6] The United States Supreme Court refused to give
    weight to this passage of legislative history unattached to the
    text of IDRA: “We are not aware of any case . . . in which we
    have given authoritative weight to a single passage of legisla-
    tive history that is in no way anchored in the text of the stat-
    ute.” 
    Id.
     The Court emphasized that the passage of legislative
    history Shannon identified “[did] not purport to explain or
    interpret any provision of the IDRA.” 
    Id.
     The Court con-
    cluded by stating that “ ‘courts have no authority to enforce
    [a] principl[e] gleaned solely from legislative history that has
    no statutory reference point.’ ” 
    Id. at 584
     (alterations in origi-
    nal) (quoting Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No.
    474 v. NLRB, 
    814 F.2d 697
    , 712 (D.C. Cir. 1987)); see also
    Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 
    443 F.3d 676
    , 686 (9th Cir. 2006)
    (per curiam) (holding that statutory silence, “coupled with a
    sentence in a legislative committee report untethered to any
    statutory language,” did not bring about a change in govern-
    ing law). The Supreme Court thus made clear that principles
    in legislative history that have no statutory reference point
    964     NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    and do not purport to explain any part of an enacted law do
    not carry the force of law. As such, they do not bind anyone
    —administrative agencies included.
    Shannon is not the only case illustrating that it is contrary
    to law for an agency to conclude that it is legally bound by
    language in a congressional committee report. In Cherokee
    Nation of Oklahoma v. Leavitt, 
    543 U.S. 631
    , 646 (2005), the
    Secretary of Health and Human Services argued that unam-
    biguous statutory language, when paired with conflicting leg-
    islative history, rendered a statute ambiguous. The Court held
    that the statute was not ambiguous, stating that “[t]he relevant
    case law makes clear that restrictive language contained in
    Committee Reports is not legally binding.” 
    Id.
     at 646 (citing
    Lincoln v. Vigil, 
    508 U.S. 182
    , 192 (1993); UAW v. Donovan,
    
    746 F.2d 855
    , 860-61 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Scalia, J.); Blackhawk
    Heating & Plumbing Co. v. United States, 
    622 F.2d 539
    , 552
    & n.9 (Ct. Cl. 1980)); see also Lincoln, 
    508 U.S. at 192
    (“[I]ndicia in committee reports and other legislative history
    as to how . . . funds should or are expected to be spent do not
    establish any legal requirements on [an] agency.” (internal
    quotation omitted)).11
    11
    The utility of legislative history stands on a different footing when it
    is tied directly to statutory language and that language is ambiguous. In
    such a case, the legislative history may permissibly inform judgment about
    interpreting ambiguous statutory terms. For example, in Northwest Forest
    Resource Council v. Glickman, we stated, “a congressional conference
    report is recognized as the most reliable evidence of congressional intent
    because it ‘represents the final statement of the terms agreed to by both
    houses.’ ” 
    82 F.3d 825
    , 835 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Dep’t of Health &
    Welfare v. Block, 
    894 F.2d 895
    , 901 (9th Cir. 1986)). However, in that
    case, the statutory language was not silent on the relevant issue. See 
    id.
    Here, by contrast, the passage of legislative history in question is unrelated
    to any provision of the statute that Congress has enacted. When legislative
    history is not tied to any statutory text, we properly should give it no
    weight. See Abrego, 
    443 F.3d at 683
     (“[C]onsideration of legislative his-
    tory is appropriate where statutory language is ambiguous. Ambiguity,
    however, is at least a necessary condition. In this instance, the statute is
    not ambiguous. Instead, it is entirely silent as to the burden of proof on
    removal.” (citations omitted))
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER                      965
    [7] The principle that committee report language has no
    binding legal effect is grounded in the text of the Constitution
    and in the structure of separated powers the Constitution cre-
    ated. Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution is
    explicit about the manner in which Congress can take legally
    binding action.12 Members of Congress cannot use committee
    report language to make an end run around the requirements
    of Article I. If Congress wishes to alter the legal duties of per-
    sons outside the legislative branch, including administrative
    agencies, it must use the process outlined in Article I. See INS
    v. Chadha, 
    462 U.S. 919
    , 952 (1983); see also Clinton v. City
    of New York, 
    524 U.S. 417
    , 439-40 (1998) (holding that “the
    power to enact statutes may only be exercised in accord with
    a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, proce-
    dure” outlined in Article I (internal quotation omitted)). BPA
    acted contrary to law by treating committee report language—
    language that was not subjected to the bicameralism and pre-
    sentment requirements of Article I—as imposing upon BPA
    a legal duty to transfer the functions of the FPC. Because the
    12
    Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the United States Constitution pro-
    vides:
    Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives
    and the Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the
    President of the United States; if he approve; he shall sign it; but
    if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that House in
    which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at
    large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such
    reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the
    bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other
    House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if
    approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But
    in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by
    yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and
    against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House
    respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President
    within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been pre-
    sented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had
    signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its
    return, in which case it shall not be a law.
    966       NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    committee reports in this case were not subject to the “finely
    wrought” process in Article I, BPA erred by giving the reports
    binding effect.
    [8] Treating legislative reports as binding law also under-
    mines our constitutional structure of separated powers,
    because legislative reports do not come with the traditional
    and constitutionally-mandated political safeguards of legisla-
    tion. As noted above, legislative reports are not acts of law
    satisfying the precise requirements of Article I, which were
    devised by the Framers to ensure separation of powers and a
    careful legislative process. By contrast, legislative reports
    may in some cases be written by an individual legislator, con-
    gressional staffers, or even lobbyists.13 Giving binding effect
    13
    The Supreme Court has cautioned:
    [L]egislative materials like committee reports, which are not
    themselves subject to the requirements of Article I, may give
    unrepresentative committee members—or, worse yet, unelected
    staffers and lobbyists—both the power and the incentive to
    attempt strategic manipulations of legislative history to secure
    results they were unable to achieve through the statutory text.
    Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 
    545 U.S. 546
    , ___, 
    125 S. Ct. 2611
    , 2626 (2005)).
    Judge Kozinski has likewise observed:
    Reports are usually written by staff or lobbyists, not legislators;
    few if any legislators read the reports; they are not voted on by
    the committee whose views they supposedly represent, much less
    by the full Senate or House of Representatives; they cannot be
    amended or modified on the floor by legislators who may dis-
    agree with the views expressed therein.
    Wallace v. Christensen, 
    802 F.2d 1539
    , 1560 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc)
    (Kozinski, J., concurring).
    Committee reports often contain “what some committee members
    wanted in the bill, but did not get,” and are often written before the bill
    is drafted, Puerta v. United States, 
    121 F.3d 1338
    , 1344 (9th Cir. 1997),
    or after a bill is passed, Lao v. Wickes Furniture Co., Inc., 
    455 F. Supp. 2d 1045
    , 1051 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (refusing to give weight to committee
    report issued ten days after the passage of a law).
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER       967
    to passages in legislative reports may thus give binding legal
    effect to the unchecked will of a lone person, and that is not
    what our Constitution envisions.
    The statements of BPA Vice President Delwiche illustrate
    how BPA’s reliance on legislative history undermined separa-
    tion of powers in this case. Delwiche said that BPA, the
    agency he led, was “an Executive Branch agency, accountable
    to Congress.” It is certainly true that Congress through legis-
    lation may direct how BPA shall operate. But an executive
    branch agency which views itself as subservient to a sentence
    in a legislative report undermines the distribution of authority
    in our federal government in which every exercise of political
    power is checked and balanced.
    [9] BPA’s treatment of legislative history as binding law
    also frustrated the statutory design of the Northwest Power
    Act. Rather than adhering to the Act’s carefully-tailored
    requirement that BPA take actions consistent with the guid-
    ance provided by the Plan and Program crafted by the Council
    as well as the purposes of the Act, BPA simply gave conclu-
    sive weight to what might have been the view of a lone legis-
    lator, staffer, or lobbyist. That the Council, and guidance from
    it, derives from political and expert representatives from four
    Pacific Northwest states, affected Indian tribes, and groups
    with interest in fisheries only intensifies BPA’s error in rely-
    ing so heavily on congressional report statements that might
    have been penned by a single legislator or single lobbyist, and
    that do not satisfy Article I’s requirements and do not have
    force of law. The Act contemplates a participatory process in
    which the varied constituencies of the Pacific Northwest
    advise BPA on how it should exercise its discretion. By fol-
    lowing congressional committee report language as if it were
    mandatory law, BPA ignored the opinions of those individu-
    als and groups directly affected by its policy choices and cir-
    cumvented the unique structure of cooperative federalism
    created by the Act.
    968     NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    Delwiche incorrectly believed that the dominant factors in
    his decision about the continued operation of the FPC were
    statements in legislative history, untied to the legislative com-
    mands of Congress, when, to the contrary, his agency’s
    organic statute, the Northwest Power Act, states that one of its
    purposes is to allow the States, local governments, and citi-
    zens of the Pacific Northwest (including fish and wildlife
    agencies and Indian tribes) to participate in the development
    of regional energy conservation plans, plans for renewable
    resources, and plans for environmental protection and
    enhancement. 
    16 U.S.C. § 839
    (3).14
    The Act also requires BPA to exercise its authority in a
    manner consistent with the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Pro-
    gram, see 
    id.
     § 839b(h)(10)(A), the most recent version of
    which called for the continued operation of the FPC. Indeed,
    the Act makes no secret that BPA’s actions “shall be consis-
    tent with the [Council’s Fish and Wildlife] plan and any
    amendment thereto,” id. § 839b(d)(2), as the Act recites the
    consistency requirement numerous times, see id. §§ 839b(h),
    839c(d)(3), 839d(b)-(c). Possibly, BPA could exercise some
    discretion to depart from its prior practice of funding the FPC
    in accordance with the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program,
    if such a departure was necessary for BPA to comply with its
    statutory obligation to use its authority in a manner consistent
    with the Council’s Power Plan or purposes of the Act. But no
    nice question of balancing potentially conflicting obligations
    is presented when BPA adopts a slavish adherence to a sen-
    tence in a legislative committee report.
    14
    In NRIC, 
    35 F.3d at 1388
    , we recognized that the Council must give
    “due weight” to views of fishery managers, state and federal wildlife agen-
    cies, and Indian tribes in formulating the Fish and Wildlife Program. See
    16 U.S.C. § 839b(h)(7). It follows with stronger logic that when the final
    Fish and Wildlife Program, the product of a collaborative process, calls for
    the continued operation of the FPC, BPA cannot then disregard the Coun-
    cil’s view without giving the Council’s view due weight. The Northwest
    Power Act requires BPA to act in a manner consistent with the Fish and
    Wildlife Program. Id. § 839b(h)(10)(A).
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER      969
    We may only sustain an agency’s action on the grounds
    actually considered by the agency. As the Supreme Court
    explained in SEC v. Chenery Corp., 
    318 U.S. 80
    , 95 (1943),
    “an administrative order cannot be upheld unless the grounds
    upon which the agency acted in exercising its powers were
    those upon which its action can be sustained.” In other words,
    the APA obliges us to set BPA’s action aside unless the
    record demonstrates that, because BPA considered some other
    basis for its action, BPA’s decision to transfer the functions
    of the FPC was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
    See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 
    332 U.S. 194
    , 196 (1947) (“[A]
    reviewing court, in dealing with a determination or judgment
    which an administrative agency alone is authorized to make,
    must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds
    invoked by the agency. If those grounds are inadequate or
    improper, the court is powerless to affirm the administrative
    action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate
    or proper basis.”).
    B
    BPA argues that, even if language in the congressional
    committee reports did not provide a rational basis for its
    action transferring the functions of the FPC, its decision can
    be upheld as a reasonable application of the Act’s requirement
    that it exercise its authority in a manner consistent with the
    Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. BPA contends that it
    carefully considered the issues before it and therefore we
    should let stand its decision to transfer the functions of the
    FPC. The petitioners contend, by contrast, that BPA never
    considered the consistency provision of the Act in deciding to
    transfer the functions of the FPC and insufficiently analyzed
    the issues before it. Thus, petitioners urge that BPA acted
    arbitrarily and capriciously.
    1
    [10] Before further evaluating BPA’s decision to transfer
    the functions of the FPC to Pacific States and Battelle, we
    970      NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    outline the principles governing the scope of our review under
    the arbitrary and capricious standard of § 706(2) of the APA.
    The Supreme Court has explained:
    The scope of review under the “arbitrary and capri-
    cious” standard is narrow and a court is not to substi-
    tute its judgment for that of the agency.
    Nevertheless, the agency must examine the relevant
    data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its
    action including a “rational connection between the
    facts found and the choice made.”
    Motor Vehicle Mfgs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins.
    Co., 
    463 U.S. 29
    , 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines
    v. United States, 
    371 U.S. 156
    , 168 (1962)); see Natural Res.
    Def. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 
    421 F.3d 797
    , 806 (9th Cir.
    2005). That is, an agency must “cogently explain why it has
    exercised its discretion in a given manner,” and “[i]n review-
    ing that explanation, we must ‘consider whether the decision
    was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and
    whether there has been a clear error of judgment.’ ” State
    Farm, 
    463 U.S. at 43, 48
     (quoting Bowman Transp., Inc. v.
    Ark.-Best Freight Sys., 
    419 U.S. 281
    , 285 (1974)).
    [11] An agency decision is arbitrary and capricious “if the
    agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended
    it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect
    of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that
    runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so
    implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in
    view or the product of agency expertise.” State Farm, 
    463 U.S. at 43
    .15
    15
    “Some courts have held that agency action is arbitrary and capricious
    if ‘the agency has not really taken a ‘hard look’ at the salient problems and
    has not genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making.’ ” Riverbend
    Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 
    958 F.2d 1479
    , 1488 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting
    Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 
    444 F.2d 841
    , 851 (D.C. Cir.
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER                971
    In this case, BPA departed from its long-standing practice
    of funding a unitary Fish Passage Center and transferred the
    FPC’s functions to two separate entities. An agency is entitled
    to change its course when its view of what is in the public’s
    interest changes. However, “an agency changing its course
    must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies
    and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually
    ignored, and if an agency glosses over or swerves from prior
    precedents without discussion it may cross the line from the
    tolerably terse to the intolerably mute.” Greater Boston Tele-
    vision Corp. v. FCC, 
    444 F.2d 841
    , 852 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
    (footnotes omitted), quoted in State Farm, 
    463 U.S. at 57
    ; see
    also Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Wichita Bd. of
    Trade, 
    412 U.S. 800
    , 808 (1973) (plurality opinion)
    (“Whatever the ground for the [agency’s] departure from prior
    norms, . . . it must be clearly set forth so that the reviewing
    court may understand the basis of the agency’s action and so
    may judge the consistency of that action with the agency’s
    mandate.”); W. States Petroleum Ass’n v. EPA, 
    87 F.3d 280
    ,
    1970)). Accordingly, some commentators have suggested that our task in
    reviewing agency action under § 706(2) of the APA is to “look[ ] closely
    at whether the agency has taken a hard look at the question” before it, 33
    Charles Alan Wright & Charles H. Koch, Jr., Federal Practice and Proce-
    dure § 8335 (2006) (emphasis omitted), though other commentators
    decline to adopt the “hard look” phraseology, see 2 Richard J. Pierce, Jr.,
    Administrative Law Treatise § 11.4 (4th ed. 2002) (“In order to avoid judi-
    cial reversal of its action as arbitrary and capricious, an agency must
    engage in ‘reasoned decisionmaking,’ defined to include an explanation of
    how the agency proceeded from its findings to the action it has taken.”).
    Because the Supreme Court has never explicitly embraced the “hard look”
    approach to judicial review under the arbitrary and capricious standard of
    the APA, cf. Indus. Union Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 
    448 U.S. 607
    , 695 n.9 (1980) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (stating that the arbi-
    trary and capricious “inquiry is designed to require the agency to take a
    ‘hard look’ ” at the issues before it), we adhere to the Supreme Court’s
    explicit guidance in State Farm that an agency must cogently explain its
    actions and demonstrate a rational connection between the facts it found
    and the choice it made.
    972     NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    284 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that an agency “must clearly set
    forth the ground for its departure from prior norms”).
    Moreover, in reviewing BPA’s action, we must look to
    BPA’s reasoning in making its decision to transfer the func-
    tions of the FPC, and not to other reasons for its decision that
    BPA might marshal before us. As the Supreme Court has
    explained, we “may not accept appellate counsel’s post hoc
    rationalizations for agency action,” Burlington Truck Lines,
    
    371 U.S. at 168
    , and we “may not supply a reasoned basis for
    the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given,” Bow-
    man Transp., Inc., 419 U.S. at 85-86 (citing Chenery, 
    332 U.S. at 196
    ).16
    2
    [12] In arguing that it sufficiently assessed the issues before
    it, BPA defends its decision as the outcome of “a public pro-
    cess within the confines of the 120-day transition period set
    by Congress.” However, the administrative record does not
    show that BPA, as required by State Farm, considered the rel-
    evant facts and used a rational process to decide to transfer
    the functions of the FPC to other entities. Apart from the evi-
    dence in the record reflecting BPA’s incorrect belief that it
    was required to follow the congressional committee report
    language, there is no evidence showing how BPA decided to
    16
    BPA argues that its interpretation of the Northwest Power Act and its
    decision to transfer the functions of the FPC are entitled to substantial def-
    erence under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
    Inc., 
    467 U.S. 837
    , 842-45 (1984), Aluminum Co. of America v. Central
    Lincoln Peoples’ Utility District, 
    467 U.S. 380
    , 389 (1984), and their
    progeny in our court, see, e.g., APAC, 
    126 F.3d at 1164
    . Perhaps BPA
    might be entitled to deference in this case if it was actually interpreting the
    Act, one of its organic statutes. However, as we discuss in the next sec-
    tion, there is scant evidence in the record that BPA, in deciding to transfer
    the functions of the FPC, was interpreting the Act’s provision that it exer-
    cise its authority in a manner consistent with the Council’s Fish and Wild-
    life Program, see 16 U.S.C. § 839b(h)(10)(A), or was interpreting any
    other provision of the Act.
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER              973
    transfer the functions of the FPC and to issue the December
    8, 2005 Program Solicitation. This failure presents itself in
    high relief in light of the Council’s program calling for the
    continued operation of the FPC. So far as the record is con-
    cerned, we have no explanation for why BPA would abandon
    the FPC in the face of its inclusion in the Council’s Program,
    beyond the mistaken belief of BPA that statements in legisla-
    tive reports were mandatory and foreclosed the continued
    funding of the FPC.
    As evidence of the decision-making process BPA used to
    decide to award the contract for the functions formerly per-
    formed by the FPC to Pacific States and Battelle, BPA points
    to a PowerPoint slide from a presentation dated January 26,
    2006, the same day BPA issued a press release announcing
    that it decided to transfer the FPC’s functions to Pacific States
    and Battelle. In the slide BPA prepared, each bidder received
    an “X” for each of eight specified tasks17 BPA determined the
    bidder could satisfactorily perform. In other words, a bidder
    who BPA concluded could perform all eight tasks satisfacto-
    rily would receive eight Xs, a bidder who could perform four
    of the eight tasks satisfactorily would receive four Xs, and so
    on. But there is no evidence in the record of how BPA deter-
    mined whether a bidder would get an X or be left blank for
    each specified task. And even if the PowerPoint presentation
    did contain evidence of a rational decision-making process, it
    is uncertain whether BPA actually relied on that process in
    making its decision to transfer the functions of the FPC to
    Pacific States and Battelle because the PowerPoint slide was
    prepared on January 26, 2006, the very same day BPA
    announced it decided to award Pacific States and Battelle the
    contracts to perform the functions formerly performed by the
    FPC.
    17
    The specified tasks were: database management; routine analysis and
    reporting; coordination of the smolt monitoring program; miscellaneous
    additional technical tasks; expanded, non-routine analysis; independent
    technical review; policy oversight and guidance; and coordination with
    other contractors.
    974    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    As further purported evidence of the process which led
    BPA to decide to transfer the functions of the FPC to Pacific
    States and Battelle, BPA presents a memorandum comparing
    the functions of the FPC with the functions of the new model.
    However, the memorandum giving this comparison was
    drafted on March 13, 2006, a month and a half after BPA
    awarded the contracts for the functions formerly performed by
    the FPC to two other entities. BPA thus could not have relied
    on this memorandum in deciding to transfer the functions of
    the FPC and in awarding the contracts to Pacific States and
    Battelle.
    BPA also indicated, in a letter to the Yakama tribe and a
    similar letter to five members of the Pacific Northwest’s con-
    gressional delegation, that it believed the Program Solicitation
    complied with its duty, under the Act, to “mitigate the impact
    on salmon and steelhead in a manner consistent with the Pro-
    gram.” But again, the letter does not reflect any rational
    decision-making process that BPA relied upon to conclude
    that transferring the functions of the FPC was in accord with
    its statutory duty to use its authority in a manner consistent
    with the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program.
    In Confederated Tribes, 
    342 F.3d at 933
    , we held that BPA
    provided a reasoned explanation for its decision that imple-
    menting certain biological opinions was consistent with
    BPA’s statutory mandate to treat fish and wildlife equitably
    with power because the record elaborated BPA programs,
    decisions, and opinions reflecting how BPA gave equitable
    treatment to fish and wildlife. By contrast, in this case, the
    only reference in the administrative record to the Act’s con-
    sistency requirement is the letter from BPA to Yakama and
    the similar letter from BPA to five members of the Pacific
    Northwest’s congressional delegation baldly asserting that
    BPA is transferring the functions of the FPC to comply with
    its statutory mandate to protect fish and wildlife consistent
    with the Program. But the record does not show the process,
    if there was one, that BPA used to determine that its decision
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER                975
    to transfer the functions of the FPC was consistent with
    BPA’s statutory mandate to use its authority in a manner con-
    sistent with the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. Because
    the 2003 Amendments to the Council’s Program describe the
    functions the FPC should perform, BPA’s record of decision
    should have shown reasons for its decision to transfer the
    FPC’s functions elsewhere and how this would be consistent
    with the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program.
    This case is more similar to State Farm than it is to Confed-
    erated Tribes. In State Farm, the Supreme Court held that the
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s
    (“NHTSA”) decision to rescind a rule requiring automobile
    manufacturers to include passive restraints in their cars was
    arbitrary and capricious because the NHTSA provided “ ‘no
    findings and no analysis here to justify the choice made, no
    indication of the basis on which the [agency] exercised its
    expert discretion.’ ” State Farm, 
    463 U.S. at 48
     (alteration in
    original) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, 
    371 U.S. at 167
    ).
    Just as the NHTSA had the authority to use its discretion to
    rescind the passive restraint rule in State Farm, so too BPA
    possibly may have the ability rationally to conclude that the
    continued operation of the FPC in its present state was no lon-
    ger in the public interest, after giving due weight to the Act’s
    requirement that its actions be consistent with what the Coun-
    cil said in the Program and Plan, and the purposes of the
    Northwest Power Act. “But an agency changing its course
    must supply a reasoned analysis . . . .” Id. at 57 (internal quo-
    tation omitted). BPA has not cogently explained its decision
    to transfer the functions of the FPC, and the record does not
    indicate that that decision was the output of a rational
    decision-making process. Instead, BPA departed from its two-
    decade-old precedent without supplying a reasoned analysis
    for its change of course.18 BPA’s decision to transfer the func-
    18
    In its brief, BPA argues that it consulted with various fishery manag-
    ers, one scientist, and the public in making its decision to transfer the
    976     NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER
    tions of the FPC was arbitrary and capricious.19
    IV
    [13] The United States Supreme Court has declared that we
    must require that an agency “cogently explain why it has
    exercised its discretion in a given manner.” State Farm, 
    463 U.S. at 48
    . The only explanation shown in BPA’s record for
    functions of the FPC. BPA asserts that, in deciding which proposals to
    accept, it “consulted with tribal, state and federal fisheries managers”;
    “provided a forum in which to hold public discussion and debate on this
    issue”; “considered and largely followed the recommendations” of a group
    of Indian tribes and an association of fisheries; ensured that the Program
    Solicitation complied with the 2003 Amendments to the Fish and Wildlife
    Program; “followed the general principles from the U.S. National Acade-
    mies scientific reporting process” in preparing the technical services
    agreement with the entities replacing the FPC; obtained “expert scientific
    review of the proposals” from the former executive director of the Colum-
    bia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority; and “relied on the advice provided
    in letters from members of the Northwest congressional delegation, as
    well as the report language and the Program amendments.” However, as
    we discussed, it does not appear from the record that BPA actually relied
    upon any of these rationales in deciding to transfer the functions of the
    FPC, and BPA may not justify its decision to our court based on these
    post-hoc rationalizations for its action. See Burlington Truck Lines, 
    371 U.S. at 168
    .
    19
    BPA argues that its decision to transfer the functions of the FPC com-
    plies with its substantive obligation to exercise its authority “in a manner
    consistent with the plan, . . . the program adopted by the Council . . . , and
    the purposes of [the Northwest Power Act],” 16 U.S.C. § 839b(h)(10)(A),
    even though the 2000 Program and the 2003 Amendments “call[ ] for the
    continued operation of the Fish Passage Center.” 2003 Amendments,
    supra, at 27. Because we hold that BPA’s decision to transfer the func-
    tions of the FPC was not the output of a reasoned decision-making pro-
    cess, as the APA requires, we need not determine whether, on a proper
    record with factual determinations and an adequate explanation of a ratio-
    nal connection between facts determined and action taken, a decision of
    BPA to transfer the functions of the FPC is consistent with the Council’s
    Fish and Wildlife Program and with the Plan and the objectives of the
    Northwest Power Act.
    NORTHWEST ENV’TL DEF. CEN. v. BONNEVILLE POWER       977
    why it transferred the functions of the FPC was that it was
    responding to congressional committee report language that
    BPA believed created a binding obligation on it. That is not
    a cogent explanation because BPA acted contrary to law in
    concluding that congressional committee report language car-
    ried the force of law and bound BPA to transfer the functions
    of the FPC. Because BPA has not shown a rational basis for
    its decision to transfer the functions of the FPC to Pacific
    States and Battelle, we grant the petition for review. We hold
    that BPA’s decision to transfer the functions of the FPC to
    Pacific States and Battelle was arbitrary, capricious, and con-
    trary to law. We set aside BPA’s decision to transfer the func-
    tions of the FPC to Pacific States and Battelle and order that
    BPA continue its existing contractual arrangement to fund and
    support the FPC unless and until it has established a proper
    basis for displacing the FPC.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-70430, 06-71182

Citation Numbers: 477 F.3d 668

Judges: Hawkins, Silverman, Gould

Filed Date: 1/23/2007

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024

Authorities (43)

Lao v. Wickes Furniture Co., Inc. , 455 F. Supp. 2d 1045 ( 2006 )

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Wichita Board of ... , 93 S. Ct. 2367 ( 1973 )

Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha , 103 S. Ct. 2764 ( 1983 )

public-utility-district-no-1-of-douglas-county-public-utility-district-no , 947 F.2d 386 ( 1991 )

kaiser-aluminum-chemical-corporation-public-power-council-intervenor-v , 261 F.3d 843 ( 2001 )

Shannon v. United States , 114 S. Ct. 2419 ( 1994 )

tinoqui-chalola-council-of-kitanemuk-and-yowlumne-tejon-indians-and , 232 F.3d 1300 ( 2000 )

western-states-petroleum-association-northwest-pulp-paper-association , 87 F.3d 280 ( 1996 )

northwest-resource-information-center-inc-v-national-marine-fisheries , 25 F.3d 872 ( 1994 )

northwest-resource-information-center-inc-trout-unlimited-oregon-natural , 35 F.3d 1371 ( 1994 )

confederated-tribes-of-the-umatilla-indian-reservation-nez-perce-tribe , 342 F.3d 924 ( 2003 )

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State ... , 103 S. Ct. 2856 ( 1983 )

Clinton v. City of New York , 118 S. Ct. 2091 ( 1998 )

Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, ... , 104 S. Ct. 2778 ( 1984 )

natural-resources-defense-council-southeast-alaska-conservation-council , 421 F.3d 797 ( 2005 )

New Orleans v. New Orleans Water Works Co. , 12 S. Ct. 142 ( 1891 )

international-brotherhood-of-electrical-workers-local-union-no-474 , 814 F.2d 697 ( 1987 )

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment , 118 S. Ct. 1003 ( 1998 )

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance , 124 S. Ct. 2373 ( 2004 )

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. , 125 S. Ct. 2611 ( 2005 )

View All Authorities »