Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 326

OCTOBER  TERM,  2009 

165 

Syllabus 

NRG  POWER  MARKETING,  LLC,  et al.  v.  MAINE
 
PUBLIC  UTILITIES  COMMISSION  et al.
 

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for 
the district of columbia circuit 

No. 08–674.  Argued November 3, 2009—Decided January 13, 2010 

The Mobile-Sierra doctrine—see United Gas Pipe Line Co. v.  Mobile Gas 
Service  Corp.,  350  U. S.  332,  and  FPC  v.  Sierra  Paciﬁc  Power  Co., 
350  U. S.  348—requires  the  Federal  Energy  Regulatory  Commission 
(FERC)  to  presume  that  an  electricity  rate  set  by  a  freely  negotiated 
wholesale-energy contract meets the Federal Power Act’s “just and rea­
sonable”  prescription,  16  U. S. C.  § 824d(a);  the  presumption  may  be 
overcome only if FERC concludes that the contract seriously harms the 
public  interest.  Morgan  Stanley  Capital  Group  Inc.  v.  Public  Util. 
Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty., 554 U. S. 527, 530. 

For  many  years,  New  England’s  supply  of  electricity  capacity  was 
barely  sufﬁcient  to  meet  the  region’s  demand.  FERC  and  New  Eng­
land’s generators, electricity providers, and power customers made sev­
eral attempts to address the problem.  This case arises from the latest 
effort to design a solution.  Concerned parties reached a comprehensive 
settlement  agreement  (Agreement)  that,  inter  alia,  established  rate-
setting  mechanisms  for  sales  of  energy  capacity  and  provided  that  the 
Mobile-Sierra  public  interest  standard  would  govern  rate  challenges. 
FERC approved the Agreement, ﬁnding that it presents a just and rea­
sonable  outcome  that  is  consistent  with  the  public  interest.  Objectors 
to  the  settlement  sought  review  in  the  D.  C.  Circuit,  which  largely  re­
jected their efforts to overturn FERC’s approval order, but agreed with 
them that when a challenge to a contract rate is brought by noncontract­
ing  third  parties,  Mobile-Sierra’s  public  interest  standard  does  not 
apply. 

Held:  The Mobile-Sierra presumption does not depend on the identity of 
the  complainant  who  seeks  FERC  investigation.  The  presumption  is 
not  limited  to  challenges  to  contract  rates  brought  by  contracting 
parties.  It  applies,  as  well,  to  challenges  initiated  by  noncontracting 
parties.  Pp. 171–177. 

(a)  Morgan  Stanley  did  not  reach  the  question  presented  here,  but 
its  reasoning  strongly  suggests  that  the  D.  C.  Circuit’s  holding  misper­
ceives the aim, and diminishes the force, of the Mobile-Sierra doctrine. 
Announced three months after the Court of Appeals’ disposition in this 
case,  Morgan  Stanley  reafﬁrmed  Mobile-Sierra’s  instruction  to  FERC