A few years back the BPA was taken to court by several of the PUDs in WA, and the court ruled in favor of the PUDs. As a result, the BPA was ordered to return millions of dollars to the PUDs. There were several messages from our local PUD commissioners regarding this matter which touted their victory and the soon to be returned excess funds which had been charged by the BPA.
Then, as I recall, after a mere token return of the funds ordered by the courts, the BPA refused to abide by the court decision. Some of the PUDs then decided to negotiate separate agreements with the BPA rather than to continue to fight BPA in court. Our local PUD refused such separate action and indicated they would continue to pursue the case as the court had ordered, charging that the BPA had in effect failed to comply with the original court decision, and thus was in contempt of the court order.
Some of this may not be completely accurate, but it is generally what has happened as I recall. So where does this stand at the moment? Has our local PUD taken action as promised to bring this situation to the court's attention? I would expect the court would be furious that the BPA failed to comply with their instructions, and that major fines would be imposed on top of monies already ordered to be returned the the PUDs. So where does this stand, and when will we see the remainder of the money?

According to Assistant General Manager Doug Smith:

"The status as of this moment is that the majority of BPA's customers have agreed to a settlement. There are a small number of utilities (not sure of the exact number - more than ten, but less than 15) who refused to settle. The settling parties have filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit to have the pending cases dismissed, and we, along with other non-settling utilities, have filed a motion to prevent their dismissal.

Two parties (Alcoa and the Association of Public Agency Customers) have filed suits challenging the settlement. At this time, the motion to dismiss and our pending lawsuits have been stayed pending the outcome of the lawsuits challenging the settlement.

One important thing to keep in mind is that the court was not very specific regarding the actions BPA was to take when we won the original lawsuit. We don't believe they did what the court instructed them to do, hence the lawsuit, but the instructions were vague enough that it's not really a slam dunk to say BPA did not follow the court order. That will be decided in court, unless the settling parties are successful in getting our cases dismissed."

Why would parties that had won a lawsuit choose to settle for something other than what was ordered by the court? Am I missing something? Did they gain anything by doing that, and if they did, should our local PUD have been a part of that?

I don't get the confusion as to what the court ordered BPA to do. Either they followed the court order or they didn't. Were the judges confused on what they ordered BPA to do? Apparently our PUD decided BPA has not followed the court order.
And, how can parties not a part of the original suit (Alcoa and the Association of Public Agency Customers) cause the court directed actions to be delayed/dismissed?

Does this whole thing really pass the smell test?

The court didn't order a settlement, they said that the way they were doing it was wrong. BPA threw a trivial bone at the PUD's and told them that was all they would get. Some PUDs, under assault by the for-profit utilities felt with some justification that that was as good as they will get under the current political realities, so they decided to settle for the bone.

As I understand it, ALCOA was getting a really good deal from the status quo, and doesn't like the settlement because that was their bone that BPA tossed to the PUDs, so they sued too, but for the opposite reason.

"By Jove, I think you've got it!"

Thanks for the rest of the story. Still sounds like something the court wouldn't normally do...just deciding that what BPA was doing was wrong, without providing specific guidance as to what they should be doing. I hope this gets resolved without too much further delay.

The court said, "You did it wrong. Go back and do it again." The court did not tell them how to do it.

So what they WERE doing was wrong. Are they still doing it wrong or not? Or perhaps, still wrong, but in a different way? What have they changed from what they were doing that was wrong?

BPA is obligated by the Northwest Power Act (of around 1980, I think) to calculate what is called The Residential and Farm Land Exchange. On your PUD Bill, it says something about "x% of your power bill is sent to residential customers in private utilities". That is the exchange. It was put into the law because private utilities had enough clout in DC to say, "We think we should get benefit from the public water system too. After all, our customers pay taxes!" Congress knows who butters their bread and said, "give them some money". But, it doesn't go directly to the private utility. It shows up as a credit on their bill, thereby reduceing their rate. Public Power actually agreed to the exchange because there is a clause saying, "the exchange cannot cost public utilities anymore than if the Act had never been passed." And, it kept peace in the valley.

Originally, the calculation was basically, the difference between the cost of private power and the cost of public power. There was a whole bunch of other gobbly goop in there, but that's the jist. An amount evening out the rates was assessed to BPA and transferred to PUD's, and of course then to PUD Customers. It worked fine for the private utilities when their power costs were much higher than the public's. But, as public costs went up, the privates got less money and, therefore, the residential customers got less credit on their account making private power less attractive.

The privates go to BPA and Congress and complain. Congress says "keep the privates happy" (after all, private companies and ceo's make lots of campaign contributions). BPA decided to flim flam the numbers and it cost publics a big chunk of change. We sued. We won. But, the judge simply told BPA, "go recalculate". The Administrator had his orders from Congress "keep the privates happy" and from the court "recalculate". So he began that process. Prior to the recalculation, a "settlement" was proposed.

The settlement, imo, is kind of like a woman saying "No! No! No!". And, the guy saying, "Let me put it in just a little?" and the woman says, "Well, OK." She's still getting screwed, but I guess she feels better because she said, "Yes".

Most PUD's accepted it. Some did not and are still in court.

When you read this line, it almost makes sense, huh? After all, the Federal Government built the dams with tax dollars. So, why wouldn't private utility customers get some of the benefit?

Tax dollars were used to build the dams. However, it is essentially a loan. BPA has sent a payment in every year to pay back the principle plus interest on the billions used to build the dams. Public Utility customers have paid for and ARE paying for the Federal Columbia River Power System dams. Private utility customers are not. They just get your money. It's politics, folks.

"Just a little?"