State of California v. FERC, No. 13-71276 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioners challenged several FERC orders that were issued following the court's remand in Port of Seattle v. FERC. The key issue on appeal is the applicability of the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, which requires FERC to “presume that the rate set out in a freely negotiated wholesale-energy contract meets the ‘just and reasonable’ requirement” imposed by law. The court concluded that it has jurisdiction only as to the issue of whether FERC erred by invoking the Mobile-Sierra doctrine and that it lacks jurisdiction to review FERC’s evidentiary orders. The court held that FERC reasonably applied Mobile-Sierra to the class of contracts at issue and that FERC's interpretation is reasonable. In this case, FERC’s baseline assumption that the presumption applies to the contracts at issue is not unreasonable in light of Morgan Stanley Capital Grp., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1. Accordingly, the court denied the petition with respect to petitioners' claim that the Mobile-Sierra presumption cannot apply to the spot sales at issue and dismissed the evidentiary challenges for lack of jurisdiction.
Court Description: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The panel denied a petition for review from a decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) with respect to petitioners’ claim that the Mobile-Sierra presumption, which requires FERC to presume that the rate set in a freely negotiated wholesale-energy contract was just and reasonable, cannot apply to the spot sales at issue; and dismissed evidentiary challenges for lack of jurisdiction. The panel held that there was jurisdiction to review FERC’s decision to employ the Mobile-Sierra presumption in the class of contracts at issue because, pursuant to the inquiry in Steamboaters v. FERC, 759 F.2d 1382 (9th Cir. 1985), the test for final action under the Federal Power Act was met. The panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the individual evidentiary restrictions raised in these cases because they were interim rulings whose consequences could not be determined with any finality at this juncture. 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. FERC The panel held that FERC reasonably applied the Mobile- Sierra presumption to the class of contracts at issue in these cases.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.