Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 341.0

180 

NRG  POWER  MARKETING,  LLC  v.  MAINE  PUB. 
UTIL.  COMM’N 
Stevens, J., dissenting 

standing  of  Si er ra  provides  an  answer.  “Si er ra  was 
grounded  in  the  commonsense  notion  that  ‘[i]n  wholesale 
markets, the party  charging the rate and  the party charged 
[are]  often  sophisticated  businesses  enjoying  presumptively 
equal bargaining power, who could be expected to negotiate 
a  “just  and  reasonable”  rate  as  between  the  two  of  them.’ ”  
Morgan Stanley, 554 U. S., at 545 (quoting Verizon Commu­
nications  Inc.  v.  FCC,  535  U. S.  467,  479  (2002);  emphasis 
added).  This  “commonsense  notion”  supports  the  rule  re­
quiring FERC to apply a presumption against letting a party 
out of its own contract, as the D. C. Circuit recognized.  520 
F.  3d,  at  478  (“The  Mobile-Sierra  doctrine  applies  a  more 
deferential  standard  of  review  to  preserve  the  terms  of  the 
bargain  as  between  the  contracting  parties”).  It  does  not, 
however,  support  a  rule  requiring  FERC  to  apply  a  pre­
sumption  against  abrogating  any  rate  set  by  contract,  even 
when, as in this case, a noncontracting party may be required 
in practice to pay a rate it did not agree to. 

The  Court  further  reasons  that  “conﬁnement  of  Mobile-
Sierra  to  rate  challenges  by  contracting  parties  diminishes 
the  animating  purpose  of  the  doctrine,”  which  is  ensuring 
the  stability  of  contract-based  supply  arrangements.  Ante, 
at 175.  Maybe so, but applying Mobile-Sierra to rate chal­
lenges by noncontracting parties loses sight of the animating 
purpose  of  the  FPA,  which  is  “the  protection  of  the  public 
interest.”  Sierra,  350  U. S.,  at  355.  That  interest  is  “the 
interest of consumers in paying ‘the “lowest possible reason­
able  rate  consistent  with  the maintenance  of  adequate  serv­
ice in the public interest.” ’ ”  Morgan Stanley, 554 U. S., at 
561  (Stevens,  J.,  dissenting)  (quoting  Permian  Basin,  390 
U. S.,  at  793).  I  do  not  doubt  that  stable  energy  markets 
are  important  to  the  public  interest,  but  “under  the  FPA, 
Congress has charged FERC, not the courts, with balancing 
the short-term and long-term interests of consumers” under 
the  just-and-reasonable  standard  of  review.  Morgan  Stan­
ley,  554  U. S.,  at  563  (Stevens,  J.,  dissenting).  The  Court