Opinion ID: 577178
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sole Reliance on Private Pecuniary Gain of Consumers

Text: 51 This answer applies equally to the petitioners' related claim that the Commission's sole reliance on the private pecuniary interests of two consumers, promoted at the expense of all other local consumers, was not adequate to justify approval. It is clear that the Commission does not view the intended class of beneficiaries so narrowly. The Commission is convinced that in the long run all consumers will benefit from [its] pro-competitive policies. 53 F.E.R.C. at 61,053. Its theory is that these policies, promoted in this instance, will among other things require Cascade and other LDCs to discipline their costs and unbundle their services, promote market participation by larger numbers of players, and stimulate production and competition at the wellhead, all of which will lead in the long run to more reasonably priced services for all consumers. Whether FERC's model is 'faulty' or not, which we do not decide, we are not at liberty to replace FERC's economic reasoning, supported by its technical expertise, with our own. Michigan Consol. Gas Co. v. FERC, 883 F.2d 117, 123 (D.C.Cir.1989).