On the Docket
Consumers Backed in Rate Case
| Page: 1 2 | Next Page |
The parties to a contested rate settlement cannot include language making it more difficult for non-settling parties to challenge the deal, NRECA asserted in a U.S. Supreme Court filing.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is similarly prohibited from raising the bar on the showing that non-settling parties must make to demonstrate that the settlement made the rates they are charged unreasonable, the association added.
Accordingly, it said, a rate-setting settlement between New England’s independent transmission system operator and certain interveners cannot require that challenges by non-settling parties meet a higher standard than the “just and reasonable” showing required by the Federal Power Act.
NRECA and the American Public Power Association offered their views in a joint friend of the court brief filed March 18 in Maine Public Utilities Commission v. FERC.
The brief opposed attempts by the New England ISO and other parties to obtain Supreme Court review of a federal appeals court’s decision that rejected settling parties’ efforts to apply a higher “public interest” standard to third-party challenges.
“Non-party consumers do not lose the congressionally assured protection of just and reasonable rates because parties to a contract have provided otherwise,” noted Rich Meyer, NRECA senior regulatory counsel.
“We support sanctity of contract without losing the legislative protection for just and reasonable wholesale rates for consumers,” he added.
| Page: 1 2 | Next Page |