| Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 8, 1955 Decided February 27, 1956 | |
| Full case name | Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. |
| Citations | 350 U.S. 348 (more) 76 S. Ct. 368; 100 L. Ed. 2d 388; 1956 U.S. LEXIS 1651 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 223 F.2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1954), amended by 237 F.2d 756 (D.C. Cir. 1955); cert. granted, 349 U.S. 937 (1955). |
| Subsequent | 351 U.S. 946 (1956) (motion to amend denied). |
| Holding | |
| A contract rate filed under the Federal Power Act is unlawful only if the rate is so low as to affect the public interest by being unduly discriminatory, excessively burdensome to consumers, or a threat to continued service. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Harlan, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| Federal Power Act, 15 U.S.C. § 824 et seq. | |
Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., 350 U.S. 348 (1956), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court interpreted the Federal Power Act (FPA) as permitting the Federal Power Commission (FPC) to modify a rate specified in a contract between an electric utility and distribution company only upon a finding that the contract rate is unlawful because it adversely affects the public interest.[1] Sierra Pacific and its companion case United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp.[2] established the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, which holds that an electricity or natural gas supply rate established resulting from a freely negotiated contract is presumed to be "just and reasonable" and thus acceptable under the FPA or Natural Gas Act (NGA).[3]
- ^ Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., 250 U.S. 348 (1956).
- ^ United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., 250 U.S. 332 (1956).
- ^ Ascani, Catherine (2009). "Casenote: Deal or No Deal: It's a Deal in Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington". Mercer Law Review. 60. Walter F. George School of Law, Mercer University: 1025, 1032–33. In some literature, the Mobile-Sierra doctrine is described as being a presumption.