(November 2009)Regulators are in the unenviable position of determining an allowance for ROE that’s fair to consumers and investors in a volatile economy. The cases that stand out this year...
The Mobile-Sierra Doctrine: A Return to Its Statutory Roots
The 9th Circuit’s Snohomish and PUC decisions rationalize what has been a confusing, conflicted area of law.
19. Bridgeport Certification at P 36.
20. PJM Interconnection, LLC , 96 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,206, at 61,878 & n.13 (2001) (citing cases, footnote omitted), pet. for rev. dismissed sub nom. PPL Elec . Utils. Corp. v. FERC , Nos. 01-1369 et al. (D.C. Cir. Nov. 26, 2002) (unpublished).
21. See NSTAR Elec. & Gas. Co. v. FERC , No. 05-1362, slip op. at 18 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 9, 2007) (“Although the system operator plainly has an incentive to ensure that system-critical power is available to ensure grid stability and reliability, FERC neither in its decisions nor at oral argument was able to identify incentives driving ISO-NE to bargain for low prices.”); Bridgeport (Comm’r Kelly, concurring).
22. 295 F.3d at 14 (emphasis added).
23. Town of Norwood v. FERC , 587 F.2d 1306, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (footnote omitted); cf. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 of Grays Harbor County, Wash. v. FERC , 379 F.3d 641, 652 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2004) ( Mobile-Sierra not implicated by complaint focused on contract formation issues).
24. 471 F.3d at 1075.
25. Sierra, 350 U.S. at 355.
26. Mobile, 350 U.S. at 344.