Ferc

As in Public Utility District No. 1 v. FERC (“PUD ”), Nos. 03-72511, et al. (9th Cir. Dec. _, 2006), a related case also decided today, the petitioners — here, the California Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) and the California Electric Oversight Board (“CEOB”) (collectively, “Public Utilities Commission”) — challenge the statutory validity of electric power rates in certain wholesale power contracts. Again as in PUD, that challenge hinges on whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) was correct to apply the Mobile-Sierra “public interest” doctrine or whether in doing so it failed to meet its statutory obligation to provide “just and reasonable” review. See 16 U.S.C. § 824e(a).

In PUD, we explained that Mobile-Sierra represents a presumption “that private parties to a wholesale electric power contract have negotiated a ‘just and reasonable’ contract over a designated period of time, lawful under the FPA throughout that period.” PUD, Slip Op. at 19554. That presumption, however, “can be rebutted by establishing that the contract adversely affects the public interest.” Id., Slip Op. at 19554. We concluded that, to establish the Mobile-Sierra presumption, “three…