Commissioner James Danly Statement
November 17, 2022
EL19-77-000
I concur in today’s order.[1] I write separately to reiterate that, as the courts have repeatedly held, the edges of the file rate doctrine are sharp and its application stringent. Nevertheless, the majority seeks to smooth those jagged edges through an appeal to its broad remedial authority and discretion under section 309 of the Federal Power Act (FPA).[2] According to the majority, in Oklahoma Gas[3] the D.C. Circuit “determined that the Commission’s decision not to exercise its equitable authority in [that] situation ‘was not arbitrary and capricious.’”[4] Despite the clarity of the courts’ direction, they are trying to lull people into believing we have more power than we do, in order to chip away at the filed rate doctrine. This maneuver is, and will always be, unavailing. We have no power to exercise discretion or to bend the rules established by the filed rate doctrine or the rule against retroactive ratemaking for equitable considerations of any kind under any circumstances—ever. The Supreme Court has spoken in unmistakable terms, finding that it is necessary to require “strict adherence to the filed rate . . . despite its harsh consequences in some cases.”[5] The D.C. Circuit agrees. While “[t]he Commission may craft a variety of remedies under [s]ection 309 of the Federal Power Act,” the “filed rate doctrine . . . limits that remedial authority.”[6] “Once a tariff is filed, the Commission has no authority to provide equitable exceptions or retroactive modifications to the tariff.”[7] The D.C. Circuit explained that Old Dominion Electric Cooperative v. FERC “reinforced that FERC has ‘no discretion to waive the operation of a filed rate or to retroactively change or adjust a rate for good cause or for any other equitable considerations.’”[8] “When it applies, the filed rate doctrine is ‘a nearly impenetrable shield’ and does not yield, ‘no matter how compelling the equities.’”[9] Thus, FPA section 309 cannot be invoked to provide equitable exceptions or retroactive modifications to the filed rate. In addressing the FPA section 309 arguments in Oklahoma Gas, the D.C. Circuit quoted CPUC as “explaining that if FERC’s actions ‘violated the filed rate doctrine or the rule against retroactive ratemaking, we would not then invoke the Commission’s assessment of the equities to overcome those violations.’”[10] The court would not because it cannot, and neither can the Commission. “The filed rate requirement is stringent and admits of no equitable adjustments by the Commission or [a] court.”[11] It is not a matter of discretion.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] Okla. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 181 FERC ¶ 61,139 (2022).
[2] 16 U.S.C. § 825h.
[3] Okla. Gas & Elec. Co. v. FERC, 11 F.4th 821, 832 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (Oklahoma Gas).
[4] Okla. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 181 FERC ¶ 61,139 at P 65.
[5] Maislin Indus., U.S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116, 132 (1990); accord Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Cent. Office Tel., Inc., 524 U.S. 214, 223 (1998) (explaining the applicability of the filed rate doctrine). These cases involved application of the filed rate doctrine to an industry outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction, but the requirement of strict adherence to the doctrine applies equally here.
[6] Oklahoma Gas, 11 F.4th at 832 (citing Verso Corp. v. FERC, 898 F.3d 1, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2018); Pub. Utils. Comm’n of Cal. v. FERC, 988 F.2d 154, 168 n.12 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (CPUC) (“explaining that if FERC’s actions ‘violated the file rate doctrine or the rule against retroactive ratemaking, we would not then invoke the Commission’s assessment of the equities to overcome those violations’”).
[7] Id. at 824-25.
[8] Id. at 826 (quoting Old Dominion Elec. Coop. v. FERC, 892 F.3d 1223, 1230 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (Old Dominion)) (emphasis added); see also Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. FERC, 895 F.2d 791, 794-97 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
[9] Oklahoma Gas, 11 F.4th at 829-30 (quoting Old Dominion, 892 F.3d at 1230).
[10] Id. at 832 (quoting CPUC, 988 F.2d at 168 n.12) (emphasis added).
[11] Id.