Do federal courts have authority to review TVA's fidelity to its enabling statute, or is TVA's rate-setting excepted from all judicial review even when TVA sets rates in deliberate disregard of Congress' clearly expressed policy directive?

QUESTION PRESENTED The Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) is an independent government corporation that leverages government power and resources to operate commercially, as an electric power company. Its enabling statute provides that its electricity plants are to be primarily “for the benefit of. . . consumers.” 16 U.S.C. § 831). “(Alecordingly,” Congress instructed: [S]ale to and use by industry [of TVA power] shall be a secondary purpose, to be utilized principally to secure a sufficiently high load factor and revenue returns which will permit domestic and rural use at the lowest possible rates. Ud.) About a decade ago, TVA allegedly moved to a privatesector model, architecting a structure in which, contra the statute, load factors and revenue returns from sales to industry are not used to benefit consumers. Petitioner filed suit asserting claims for breach-of-contract, illegalexaction and under the APA. The Fourth Circuit upheld dismissal of Petitioner’s complaint, applying inter alia a new judicial-abstention doctrine which abjures judicial review of discretionary agency decision-making even where Congress provided a meaningful standard to apply. The question presented is: Do federal courts have authority to review TVA’s fidelity to its enabling statute, or is TVA’s rate-setting excepted from all judicial review even when TVA sets rates in deliberate disregard of Congress’ clearly expressed policy directive?