Commissioner James Danly Statement
November 17, 2022
ER21-58-001
I dissent from this order rejecting TransAlta Energy Marketing (U.S.) Inc.’s (TransAlta’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 TransAlta 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] TransAlta Energy Mktg. (U.S.) Inc., 181 FERC ¶ 61,127, at PP 20-24 (2022); 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] TransAlta Energy Mktg. (U.S.) Inc., 179 FERC ¶ 61,192 (2022) (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting).
[3] Id.
[4] Id.