Commissioner James Danly Statement
March 17, 2023
Docket No. ER21-2459-001

I dissent from this order rejecting Tenaska Power Services Co.’s (Tenaska’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 Tenaska 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] Tenaska Power Servs Co., 182 FERC ¶ 61,165, at PP 14-18 (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] Tenaska Power Servs Co., 181 FERC ¶ 61,220 (2022) (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting).

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

Contact Information


This page was last updated on March 17, 2023