AdobeStock_147390553

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon Grants the Motions for Preliminary Injunction in Federal Columbia River Power System Case

by Articles

On February 25, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted the Motions for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs, including environmental organizations and the State of Oregon, requiring increased spill operations at several federal hydroelectric facilities during the 2026 fish migration season.

For decades, litigation over the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) has focused on one of the Pacific Northwest’s most difficult challenges: balancing the region’s reliance on low-cost, non-emitting hydroelectric power with the federal government’s obligations to protect endangered salmon and steelhead under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The dispute has resulted in multiple Biological Opinions under the ESA, over two decades of litigation, and ongoing uncertainty for federal agencies, utilities, tribes, environmental organizations, and renewable energy developers.

In 2023, Plaintiffs, Tribes, and federal agencies entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), agreeing to stay the litigation for five years as those parties worked toward a long-term solution. Following the revival of the Trump administration, however, the federal government withdrew from the MOU. At Plaintiffs’ request, the District Court then reopened the litigation, entering the next chapter in the ongoing FCRPS litigation.

Plaintiffs filed two simultaneous Motions for Preliminary Injunction, seeking increased spill at several federal hydroelectric projects for the 2026 fish migration season and arguing that additional spill was necessary to protect the spawning cycle of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Spill refers to water that is released over a dam rather than routed through turbines to generate electricity. While some level of spill has the potential to improve fish passage, too much spill can be harmful, and any level of spill also reduces the amount of water available to generate electricity.  Plaintiffs also requested reservoir elevation operations and related conservation measures at the federal projects.   

Following briefing from the Federal Defendants, PPC, and other Defendant-Intervenors, PPC successfully argued that the court should 1) direct the parties to confer on reasonable operations and spill levels, and 2) decline to order several measures requested by Plaintiffs, including lower reservoir elevations.  The court adopted portions of the Defendant-Intervenor Group’s recommended operations proposed as part of the court-directed conferral process, including proposed summer spill operations at Ice Harbor and John Day Dams. However, the court ultimately granted Plaintiffs’ requested Preliminary Injunction, including contested spill levels that reduce hydropower production in a region that needs cost-effective and reliable power in the face of resource adequacy concerns.

After the court granted Plaintiffs’ requested Preliminary Injunction, PPC identified a key factual error in the court’s description of the MOU that was relied upon to make the court’s ultimate findings and conclusions in its Opinion and Order explaining the rationale for the Preliminary Injunction. The opinion stated that the MOU contemplated full spill through the end of August, when the MOU in fact provided for full spill only through July 31. PPC filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and the court subsequently amended its Opinion and Order, correcting that factual error. The court did not, however, modify its analysis that had relied on the fact error, but it denied PPC’s motion and declined to reconsider whether the corrected factual record affected its decision to grant the Preliminary Injunction. Sanger Greene represents the Public Power Council (Irion Sanger and Max Greene) in the litigation and the pending appeal. PPC is a nonprofit trade association representing the interests of consumer-owned utilities across the Pacific Northwest, including public utility districts, municipal utilities, electric cooperatives, and port districts that provide reliable and affordable electric service to millions of customers throughout the region.

Public Power Advocates Voluntarily Dismiss BPA Appeal

by Articles

On August 12, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order granting requests by the Public Power Council (PPC), Northwest Requirements Utilities (NRU), and the Alliance of Western Energy Consumers (AWEC) to voluntarily dismiss their respective appeals of the Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA) decision to enter into an agreement affecting the costs and operation of the Columbia River System hydroelectric dams. 

NIPPC and RNW Urge BPA Transmission Reform in New Whitepaper

by Articles

On May 3, 2023, Renewable Northwest (RNW) and the Northwest & Intermountain Power Producers Coalition (NIPPC) published a whitepaper exploring how to ensure that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) maintains one of its core purposes—transmitting power needed across the Northwest, regardless of which entity generates or consumes it—at a time of rapid change in the electric industry. The whitepaper can be viewed here. RNW and NIPPC stated that by adopting the reforms proposed in the whitepaper, or some similar combination of reforms, BPA can help ensure that the grid the Northwest needs will be in place and on time so that all consumers in the region continue to enjoy affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. 

BPA Adopted Settlement in TC-24 Related to Changes in BPA’s OATT

by Articles

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) issued the Administrator’s Final Record of Decision (Final ROD) on February 9, 2023 in the TC-24 proceeding. The Final ROD adopts changes to the terms and conditions of BPA’s open access transmission tariff (OATT) in accordance with the settlement reached among parties to the TC-24 proceeding (the TC-24 Settlement). The TC-24 Settlement itself was adopted following a collaborative process that included stakeholder workshops and settlement negotiations. 

Ninth Circuit Rejects Challenge to FERC Decisions on BPA Oversupply

by Articles

On August 10, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) rejected a challenge to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) decisions finding that Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA) policies discriminated against wind generators. The Ninth Circuit did not address the merits of the appeal, but found that the BPA’s wholesale preference customers did not have statutory standing to challenge FERC’s decision.  

FERC Approves BPA Oversupply Management Protocol and Rates

by Articles

On October 16, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued two orders accepting Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA) controversial oversupply management protocol and oversupply rates. FERC accepted BPA’s filings as temporary solutions to address the problem of high levels of generation that exceeded the available end use consumer loads on BPA’s system. This is called “oversupply” because BPA has too much generation. FERC found that BPA’s policy to displace and compensate wind generators during oversupply events is equitable and results in comparability in the provision of transmission service.  

Ninth Circuit Remands DSI Lookback to BPA

by Articles

On September 18, 2014, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA) decision not to seek a refund of some of the amounts unlawfully paid to Alcoa could be arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.  In a 2-1 decision, the appellate court remanded the matter back to BPA to more carefully consider whether BPA should seek a partial refund from Alcoa.  The Ninth Circuit also concluded that BPA has no general constitutional or statutory duty to seek a refund any time it makes an unlawful payment, and that BPA reasonably explained why it did not seek a refund from Port Townsend Paper.  A third judge concurred with most of the ruling, but would have directed BPA to consider seeking larger refunds from Alcoa.