April 23, 2014

D.C. Circuit Upholds Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Ruling to Apply Mobile-Sierra Doctrine to Forward Capacity Auction (FCA) Rates

On February 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld FERC’s determination that the Mobile-Sierra doctrine applies when deciding whether a Forward Capacity Auction (FCA) rate is just and reasonable.[1] The New England Power Generators Association (NEPGA) and another group composed of the Maine Public Utilities Commission and the Attorneys General of Massachusetts and Connecticut (collectively, the State Petitioners) challenged FERC’s ruling that, although the rates resulting from the FCA are not contract rates, they warrant the Mobile-Sierra presumption. NEPGA argued that the FCA rates are contract rates and therefore must receive the presumption. The State Petitioners argued that, because the FCA rates are not contract rates, FERC cannot presume they are just and reasonable.

The D.C. Circuit held that FERC did not exceed its discretion by applying the public interest standard to FCA rates. It dismissed NEPGA’s petition for lack of standing and denied the State Petitioners’ petition upon finding that FERC’s determination was reasonable and fell within the bounds of its discretion under section 205 of the Federal Power Act. The D.C. Circuit declined to rule on whether the auction rates constituted contract rates, but it stated that “FERC offered ample reasoning in support of its position, recognizing that the auction rates exhibit many of the indicia of contract rates[.]”[2]

Future tariff changes will need to be supported by a showing that the rate will “‘adversely affect the public interest—as where it might impair the financial ability of the public utility to continue its service, cast upon other consumers an excessive burden, or be unduly discriminatory,’” in accordance with the Mobile-Sierra doctrine.[3] This ruling may require a greater showing to change wholesale electric rates in the future.

[1] New England Power Generators Ass’n v. FERC, No. 11-1422 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 15, 2013), available here.

[2] Id. at 12.

[3] Id. at 4 (quoting Fed. Power Comm’n v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 350 U.S. 348, 355 (1956)).

Copyright © 2014 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author


Glen S. Bernstein is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Energy Practice. Mr. Bernstein represents clients in all aspects of electric utility regulation and deregulation, with an emphasis on transmission and interconnection access, rates, and planning; independent transmission providers; electricity markets; and compliance with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Standards of Conduct and Codes of Conduct, affiliate transaction rules, and antimarket manipulation rules.


About the Author


Pamela C. Tsang is an associate in Morgan Lewis's Energy Practice. Attorneys in this practice counsel clients in the electric, nuclear, oil, gas, and water industries on a broad range of energy issues. We offer clients advice on domestic and international energy regulations and represent them in arbitration, in high-stakes regulatory and commercial disputes, and in litigation before state and federal courts. Our Energy Practice provides an array of services-transactional, counseling, regulatory, and litigation-to address all of our energy clients' legal needs.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a si