Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, et al. (554 U.S. 527)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 26, 2008 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 554 U.S. 527 · 128 S. Ct. 2733
- Decided
- June 26, 2008
- Term
- October Term 2007
- Vote
- 5–2
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Under the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) must presume that the rate set out in a freely negotiated wholesale-energy contract meets the “just and reasonable” requirement imposed by law. The presumption may be overcome only if FERC concludes that the contract seriously harms the public interest. These cases present two questions about the scope of the Mobile-Sierra doctrine: First, does the presumption apply only when FERC has had an initial opportunity to review a contract rate without the presumption? Second, does the presumption impose as high a bar to challenges by purchasers of wholesale electricity as it does to challenges by sellers? I A Statutory Background The Federal Power Act (FPA), 41 Stat. 1063, as amended, gives the Commission the authority to regulate the sale of electricity in interstate commerce—a market historically characterized by natural monopoly and therefore subject to abuses of market power. See 16 U. S. C. § 824 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. V). Modeled on the Interstate Commerce Act, the FPA requires regulated utilities to file compilations of their rate schedules, or “tariffs,” with the Commission, and to provide service to electricity purchasers on the terms and prices there set forth. §824d(e). Utilities wishing to change their tariffs must notify…
Excerpt of a 49,626-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.