By Rich Heidorn Jr.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week sided with FERC in the latest chapter of the long-running legal dispute over the California-West Coast energy crisis of 2000-2001.

A three-judge panel declined to overturn FERC’s decision to apply the Mobile-Sierra doctrine — which presumes that the rate set in a freely negotiated wholesale-energy contract is just and reasonable — in determining whether Pacific Northwest power buyers are entitled to refunds.

The judges also dismissed a challenge to the scope of evidence FERC considered in the Mobile-Sierra review, saying the issue was not ripe for its review.

California Deregulation

The case before the 9th Circuit stems from the turmoil that followed California’s deregulation of the electricity market in the mid-1990s, which resulted in skyrocketing spot prices in California and the Pacific Northwest, largely driven by market manipulation by Enron and other power marketers.

The petitioners, which include the city of Seattle, challenged several FERC orders issued following the 9th Circuit’s 2007 remand of the Port of Seattle case. In that case, the court reviewed challenges to FERC’s denial of refunds to wholesale buyers that purchased power in the Pacific Northwest spot market at unusually high prices.

The court ruled that FERC’s failure to consider evidence of market manipulation was arbitrary and capricious. FERC had to “consider the possibility that the Pacific Northwest spot market was not … functional and competitive,” the court ruled.

FERC was ordered to examine evidence of market manipulation “in detail and account for it in any future orders regarding the award or denial of refunds in the Pacific Northwest proceeding.”

In response, FERC said it would invoke the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, meaning the presumption that the contracts were just and reasonable could be overcome only if specific criteria were met, such as “where it can be shown that one party to a contract engaged in such extensive unlawful market manipulation as to alter the playing field for contract negotiations.”

FERC’s invocation of the Mobile-Sierra presumption meant electricity buyers would need to “demonstrate that a particular seller engaged in unlawful market activity in the spot market and that such unlawful activity directly affected the particular contract or contracts to which the seller was a party.”

FERC said it would not consider “general allegations of market dysfunction” because the Pacific Northwest spot market operated solely through bilateral contracts, unlike the California spot market, which used a central clearing price and a centralized power exchange.

In last week’s order, the court rejected FERC’s contention that it lacked jurisdiction to review the commission’s application of Mobile-Sierra. But it deferred to what it called “FERC’s reasonable determination” that Mobile-Sierra applies to short-term sales.

“The mere short-term nature of these spot sale contracts does not render FERC’s application of the Mobile-Sierra doctrine unreasonable,” the court said. “Although long-term contracts may play a special role in stabilizing the energy market … the Supreme Court has drawn the rule so that the presumption may be invoked with regard to any contracted for rate.”

Evidentiary Challenges not Ripe

The court said, however, that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the petitioners’ challenges to restrictions that FERC imposed on the evidentiary proceeding. The petitioners said they should be permitted to introduce evidence of reporting violations, violations of obligations under the Uniform Commercial Code and state contract law, and violations by sellers that were not parties to the challenged contracts.

The court said the evidentiary orders are preliminary and lack the “definitive substantive impact” required for the court to assert jurisdiction.

It noted that “FERC has already shifted course on the ‘shape’ of the proceeding in a way that suggests some elements of its orders may not be sufficiently final for review. … Significantly, it appears that despite arguments raised by the petitioners, at least some evidence of bad faith may have been admitted in the [evidentiary] proceeding.”

The court said FERC’s final order resulting from the remand hearing will be reviewable and will allow a “more effective review of the evidentiary decisions since the court will be able to review all of the evidence taken together.”