Maine Public Utilities Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
625 F.3d 754
D.C. Cir.2010Background
- Maine PUC and Connecticut/Massachusetts Attorneys General challenged FERC's approval of a settlement that redesigned New England's capacity market.
- Settlement created a Forward Capacity Market with annual auctions held three years in advance to set capacity rates.
- Settlement included a Mobile-Sierra clause requiring challenges to auction-derived rates to be adjudicated under the public-interest standard rather than just-and-reasonable.
- Supreme Court Morgan Stanley v. Snohomish County held Mobile-Sierra applies to contract-rate challenges; NRG Power Mktg. LLC v. Maine PUC then addressed whether auction rates are contract rates.
- This court on remand examines (1) whether the auction rates are contract rates or analogizable, and (2) whether FERC had discretion to apply Mobile-Sierra to non-contract rates; remands for further proceedings.
- Jurisdiction issue: petitioners argued, and the court acknowledged, that the remand required addressing arguments not precisely raised before FERC, but the court found petitioners did raise a related rights-based challenge to the Mobile-Sierra clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Mobile-Sierra clause applies to auction rates | Maine and allies contend it deprives non-settling parties of FPA rights | FERC had discretion to apply Mobile-Sierra to these rates | Remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether the auction rates are contract rates or non-contract rates | Rates are not contract rates and thus may not be Mobile-Sierra-protected | Rates resemble cost-based tariffs; Mobile-Sierra may apply if justified | Remanded for determination |
| Whether FERC could apply Mobile-Sierra outside the contract-rate context | No, unless justified by statute and orderly explanation | Discretion exists to extend Mobile-Sierra to analogous circumstances | Remanded for explanation |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review arguments not precisely raised before FERC | Only petitioners' arguments before FERC are reviewable | Intervenors' precise framing is not required; related rights challenge suffices | Court retains jurisdiction and proceeds on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- NRG Power Marketing LLC v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 130 S. Ct. 693 (2010) (Mobile-Sierra applies to third-party challenges)
- Me. Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. FERC, 520 F.3d 464 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Mobile-Sierra clause challenged as applied to non-settling parties)
- Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Pub. Utility Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County, 554 U.S. 527 (2008) (Mobile-Sierra as application of just-and-reasonable standard to contract rates)
- United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Serv. Corp., 350 U.S. 332 (1956) (Mobile-Sierra foundational decision on contract rates)
- Federal Power Comm'n v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 350 U.S. 348 (1956) (Contract-rate defenses and public-interest considerations)
- Potomac Electric Power Co. v. FERC, 210 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (extension of Mobile-Sierra protections to purchasers)