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?"

I about spit out my tea when I read this, LOL. Love it. May have to steal it.

Thanks for the explanations about this issue.

Are you serious? Why would you find a lame analogy using an example of a man pressuring a women into having sexual intercourse to where she gives in, "LOL" worthy, "love it" worthy, or "steal" worthy? Why would you want to repeat something so demeaning and condescending toward women?

Any educated and enlightenened person, especially one having a daughter and/or granddaughter, should know better. You both should be ashamed.

Oh, bite me, dip stick. You are what stereotypes are made of.

Why am I not surprised you don't get it.

Because sometimes, you are a little bit dense. But, you are darn amusing.

I'd rather be "a little bit dense" than a whole lotta dense as your lame analogy identifies you. Likewise, I'm glad I'm "darn amusing" as opposed to darn crass.

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: --Luke 6:37

Why can't you judge for yourselves what is right? Luke 12:57

Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life? 1 Corinthians 6:3

You are one sharp cookie... dense somtimes, maybe, but darn sharp. This, however, is beneath your normally high standards. "Oh, yeah? Well so am I but, what are you?" is so third grade.

I've worked as TA in third grade classrooms.
Third graders are very bright and inquisitive.
In third grade, students learn how to spell simple compound words.

No grandkids. Just a granddog.

It's an accurate analogy showing just how repugnant what BPA doing is. Just as a situation like that involving a man and a woman is repugnant. It's not like it was a joke and that I think that situation is funny.

Geesh. Kneejerk much?

Uh-huh, sure thing.

There's that illiteracy problem again. Look up the meaning of "condemnation."

There's your exegesis problem again.

Anyone with a brain knows what you meant. Do yourself a favor and walk away.

Anyone with a Christian worldview would understand how repugnant laughing at and loving that crass analogy is. Likewise, defending it. Walking away from it would be a good first step.

I'd say it's your problem. I don't have any problems or contradictions in my interpretation of the Bible. Yours is riddled with them.

Anyone who actually follows the admonitions of Christ would understand how repugnant it is to condemn others -- but you can't see that around that beam in your eye.

Christ admonishes us to judge righteously.

Christ admonishes us to FIRST remove the plank in our own eye so we THEN can see clearly to remove the splinter in our brother's eye.

I have no doubt that Jesus Christ Himself would find the analogy to be crass and repugnant.

Just a couple of last points:

1) People must be spiritually related to be brothers.

2) Jesus absolved completely my condemnation at the Cross.

Beyond that, Beavis...take it to "Religion".

Was laughing at how true that analogy is in terms of being descriptive of the situation. Not about a woman getting screwed.

I'm so sorry I didn't write pages articulating it all in such an exact way that you couldn't, yet again, jump to erroneous conclusions.

There was no erroneous conclusion.
You were LOL-ing, loving, and wanting to steal the (crass and repugnant) analogy. Do you really expect me to believe that "may have to steal it" does not mean that you want to repeat it? Why would you want to do that? Because you found it funny. It's not funny in any context, period.

Nice try at deflection, though.

I think it's a great analogy for similar situations because it really made the point clearly on just how screwed we are.

No deflection. You just have a hateful mind toward me. I could save a baby from a burning building and you'd find something wrong with it.

ETA: Actually, you'd probably accuse me of setting it in the first place.

I do not have a hateful mind toward you...or anyone else.
Hate destroys the hater, not the hated.
I would not destroy myself with hatred for you...or anyone else.

Don't include me in your belief about how screwed "we" are.
I'm not interested in that mindset.
I prefer to remain thankful for the electricity we have available to us.

"Stash missed an e! Stash missed an e!"
So, third grade.

Good. Then quite threadjacking to piss and moan about my analogies and your lame comments about spelling and leave this one to talk about Brit's question... which, I think was answered... quite well actually.

1) Oh, I'll "quite" all right. If you indeed answered Brit's question "quite well actually", then it would follow that the case has been closed on the question, so no threadjacking involved. Unless you didn't answer it "quite well actually"...

2) You're not the boss of me.

3) You're pretty defensive about your lame, nasty ol' analogy. Very interesting.....

I agree. It was answered quite well. While I also am thankful for the electricity we have, I am also mindful of the fact that my payment should be for my consumption, not to subsidize the bill for someone in another county/state on their own grid. I have a feeling if our broken record house band thought their mortgage payment was paying off my house, they'd consider it getting screwed. They'd still be happy for their home, but they'd want to put a stop to me leeching their payments.

BPA's activities are a valid concern. Dismissing them is not taking the high road. It's being irresponsible with our local resources.

But, the trench has been dug. The teeth are sunk in. We all know those jaws don't unlock. BPA's pickpocket routine will now take a back seat to your crass, insensitive analogies. However accurate they may be.

thiss sentunce intentionallly misspelt phor eazy targit practus.

Thanks for the further explanation. I did get the point.
Actually I think the court is largely responsible for the current limbo we seem to in at the moment. Isn't it customary in making their case to the court that lawyers provide the remedy they are seeking for their particular grievance, and the court then considers the remedy sought when coming to their ruling? If that happened, then it would appear the court did not agree with the proposed remedy and just didn't come up with anything to take it's place except for the BPA to discontinue doing it the way they had been. That's the part that's troubling to me. It seems like a non decision type of decision.

Funny

I can take teasing...unlike some on this board.

There has to be better examples of winning through attrition than yours, Stash.

I agree. It seems like the judges were afraid to make a real stand on the issue. I don't watch Court TV but I've never heard of another decision without more specific remedies.

If the law is clear, then the court doesn't really need to proscribe the specific remedy; the burden is on BPA to simply implement it.

In other words, it's like getting a building permit. It isn't the job of the building inspector to engineer your project, it's only his responsibility to determine if your plans comply with the rules.

BPA threw out a settlement which in the view of the PUD doesn't comply with existing law. If I were the judge, I'd order damages against the BPA for failing to make a good faith effort to comply with it.