Commissioner James Danly Statement
February 27, 2023
Docket No. ER21-2442-001
I dissent from this order rejecting Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc.’s (Morgan Stanley’s) request for rehearing of the Commission’s Mobile-Sierra determinations.[1] I dissented from the original order because it failed to properly apply the Mobile-Sierra presumption to the contract sales at issue.[2] It erred by requiring refunds for the “premium” amount above the price index that Morgan Stanley and the willing buyers freely negotiated absent any showing that the public interest was seriously harmed by the contract rate.[3]
Today’s order on rehearing adds nothing to change my opinion. My original dissent fully explains the Commission’s misapplication of the Mobile-Sierra presumption, and, no further response being necessary here, I commend that dissent to the reader’s attention.[4]
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
[1] Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc., 182 FERC ¶ 61,132, at PP 13-17 (2023); see United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Serv. Corp., 350 U.S. 332 (1956); FPC v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 350 U.S. 348 (1956).
[2] Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc., 181 FERC ¶ 61,173 (2022) (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting).
[3] Id.
[4] Id.