NRG Power Marketing, LLC, et al. v. Maine Public Utilities Commission et al. (558 U.S. 165)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 13, 2010 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 558 U.S. 165 · 130 S. Ct. 693
- Decided
- January 13, 2010
- Term
- October Term 2009
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. The Federal Power Act (FPA or Act), 41 Stat. 1063, as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 791a et seq., authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) to superintend the sale of electricity in interstate commerce and provides that all wholesale-electricity rates must be “just and reasonable,” §824d(a). Under this Court’s Mobile-Sierra doctrine, FERC must presume that a rate set by “a freely negotiated wholesale-energy contract” meets the statutory “just and reasonable” requirement. Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty., 554 U S. 527, 530 (2008). “The presumption may be overcome only if FERC concludes that the contract seriously harms the public interest.” Ibid. This ease stems from New England’s difficulties in maintaining the reliability of its energy grid. In 2006, after several attempts by the Commission and concerned parties to address the problems, FERC approved a comprehensive settlement agreement (hereinafter Settlement Agreement or Agreement). Most relevant here, the Agreement established rate-setting mechanisms for sales of energy capacity, and provided that the Mobile-Sierra public interest standard would govern rate challenges. Parties who opposed the settlement petitioned for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit. Among multiple…
Excerpt of a 19,284-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.