Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, 128 S.Ct. 2733 (2008) and NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, 130 S.Ct. 693 (2010).
Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, 000 X. Xx. 0000 (2008) and NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, 000 X. Xx. 000 (2010).
Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County.4 Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx presented the Supreme Court with the question whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission)5 could or should exercise its authority under the Federal Power Act (FPA) to abrogate or modify contracts for the purchase and sale of large amounts of electricity entered into in the western energy crisis of 2000–2001.6 During the western energy crisis, many large sophisticated parties faced with volatile spot markets signed long-term contracts to meet their electricity needs. While the contract rates were undeniably high relative to historic forward market prices, they were generally lower than contemporaneous spot prices and insulated the buyers from any further price increases in the spot and forward markets. The buyers initially expressed satisfaction with the deals they struck, and some resold portions of their allotments for huge profits in the spot markets. But the buyers’ satisfaction was short-lived. By the summer of 2001, prices in the spot markets had declined signifi- cantly, and the contract rates no longer appeared favorable. The buyers cried foul and filed complaints asking FERC to relieve them 3 Wilmington & X.X. Xx. x. Xxxx, 91 U.S. 3, 5 (1875) (also recognizing that govern- mental intrusion into contractual relations simply to relieve parties of their ‘‘hard bargains’’ would ‘‘create an insecurity in business transactions which would be intolerable’’). 4 555 U.S. , 128 S. Ct. 2733 (2008). 5 Throughout this article, we also use the terms ‘‘FERC’’ or the ‘‘Commission’’ to refer to the Federal Power Commission, FERC’s predecessor.
Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County may terminate the Program, the Project or the Agreement at any time. The Agreement permits OKPUD to terminate the Program or the Agreement at any time. In any such event, OKPUD’s liability is limited to a refund of the Participation Fee, less the amounts received in respect of any Washington State Production Incentive Credits and/or any Generated Energy Credits received by the Participant. Neither OKPUD nor any other person will be liable to a Participant for any additional amounts.
Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, et al., 000 X.X. 000 (2008) (the “Mobile-Sierra Doctrine”).
Public Utility District No. 3, XXXXX COUNTY Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx (Jul 27, 2021 15:16 PDT) Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, General Manager Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx General Manager JPUD Fiber Lease Project 1. JPUD and Xxxxx 3 will lease 2 BPA dark Fiber from Port Angeles to Olympia
Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, et al., 000 X.X. 000
Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, et al., 554 U.S. 527 (2008) (the “Mobile-Sierra Doctrine”).
Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, et al., 000 X.X. 000 (2008) (the “Mobile-Sierra Doctrine”), and (ii) to argue before any governmental authority that any terms of this Agreement should be modified or rescinded based on (A) any claim of fraud, duress, unfairness, bad faith, or inequity in the relative bargaining power of the Parties or (B) any claim of market manipulation, unlawful activity, disruption, anomaly, dysfunction, or other adverse market conditions of any type or description.
Public Utility District No. 1 of Xxxxxxx County, Washington
