Ferc

MEMORANDUM

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (“Exelon”), successor in interest to AES New Energy, Inc., petitions for review of certain orders issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). We deny the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here.

I

FERC correctly concluded that the Mobile-Sierra presumption of reasonability does not apply to Exelon’s forward sale. See generally Morgan Stanley Capital Grp., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 554 U.S. 527, 532-34 , 128 S.Ct. 2733 , 171 L.Ed.2d 607 (2008) (explaining the presumption and its origins in United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Serv. Corp., 350 U.S. 332 , 76 S.Ct. 373 , 100 L.Ed. 373 (1956) and Fed. Power Comm’n v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 350 U.S. 348 , 76 S.Ct. 368 , 100 L.Ed. 388 (1956)). FERC reasonably interpreted Section 19 of the Cal-ISO Tariff as a Memphis clause that permitted the California Independent System Operator Corporation (“Cal-ISO”) unilaterally to seek modifications to contract rates. See PSEG Energy Res. & Trade LLC v. F.E.R.C., 665 F.3d 203, 208 (D.C. Cir.2011) (establishing “two-step, Chevron-like” review for FERC’s…