The consequences of the Bonneville Power Administration’s decision to join SPP’s Markets+ could hit the Northwest sooner rather than later even though the agency has yet to formally join the market, a group of nonprofits suing it over the choice told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The group wrote in a reply brief that the potential injuries arising from BPA’s day-ahead market choice are “imminent,” urging the court to reject agency’s argument that the suit is too hypothetical for standing. The brief is dated Feb. 20 but appeared on the docket Feb. 23.
As the NW Energy Coalition “has emphasized, Bonneville is now implementing numerous steps to ‘go live’ in Markets+ in October 2028,” the group wrote. “Every additional step towards that date without vacate and a remand order will make a fair and candid look at alternatives less likely. The court has everything it needs to vacate the DAM policy and [Record of Decision] and remand for preparation of an” environmental impact statement.
Represented by Earthjustice, the organizations suing BPA include NWEC, Idaho Conservation League, Montana Environmental Information Center, Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board and the Sierra Club.
On May 9, BPA issued its decision to join Markets+ over CAISO’s Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM). The announcement came after a lengthy debate over which day-ahead market would provide the most benefits to BPA and its customers. (See BPA Chooses Markets+ over EDAM.)
The plaintiffs filed their claims July 10, alleging the agency failed to factor in environmental impacts and financial considerations in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. (See BPA Sued in 9th Circuit over Day-ahead Market Decision.)
BPA has yet to officially join Markets+, but it plans to do so in October 2028.
In a Dec. 19 answering brief, the agency argued the plaintiffs lack standing because the alleged injuries rest on its participation in Markets+, which has yet to happen.
Even if the court finds the group has standing, the claims under the Northwest Power Act and NEPA fail under precedent established in the 9th Circuit, BPA argued.
BPA’s decision “is a quintessential example of the agency evaluating what is in its sound business interest,” according to the agency. It said the suit is an attempt at getting the court to “second-guess that determination.”
“Although they disagree with BPA’s conclusions, BPA considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,” it contended.
In the Feb. 20 brief, the plaintiffs called BPA’s injury assessment “incorrect.” They noted that when BPA announced its day-ahead market choice, it also announced it intends to exit CAISO’s Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM).
“Leaving the WEIM will result in immediate cost and reliability harms to NWEC,” the Feb. 20 brief states.
BPA’s failure to consider the environmental impacts of its choice further demonstrates the immediate risk of harm, the plaintiffs claimed. It focused only on the economic impacts of extreme weather and the necessity of building out transmission lines and generation resources, which all “have environmental consequences that Bonneville never disclosed or considered,” they argued.
Though BPA claims the DAM policy and ROD are just preliminary steps and do not trigger the need for an environmental analysis, it has committed $40 million to Markets+, demonstrating there “is nothing tentative about this choice,” the plaintiffs argued.
“While a formal contract to join has not yet been signed, the policy and ROD set in motion multiple concrete steps that are designed to culminate in a contract to join Markets+ two years from now,” according to the brief. “These steps include negotiating specific contracts, initiating necessary rate cases and amending standards.”
BPA has argued that its day-ahead market process was conducted with significant stakeholder input, noting in its final market decision that other electric utilities weighing which market to join have done so “without public process or transparency.”
Production cost studies found that participation in EDAM under certain scenarios could deliver the agency up to $106 million in greater benefits than Markets+. However, the agency has contended those failed to factor in other key issues, like governance.
“BPA rationally opted for Markets+,” the agency argued in the Dec. 19 answer. “It presented less risk in meeting BPA’s core statutory function of economical service to its customers. Moreover, Markets+ proved superior in several important evaluation criteria, which, from early in the process, BPA emphasized would be important considerations.”
Trade organizations have filed motions to intervene in the suit in support of BPA, including the Public Power Council, Alliance of Western Energy Consumers, Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative and Northwest Requirements Utilities. (See BPA Supported by Trade Orgs in Suit over Day-ahead Market Decision.)
They, along with SPP itself, highlighted Markets+’s governance approach and “overall design.”
The trade organizations filed a brief Jan. 23 saying, “BPA’s decision to pursue Markets+ was not arbitrary or capricious, as BPA considered relevant quantitative and qualitative factors and rationally applied those factors in reaching its decision.”
