Mobile-Sierra Doktrini ve Enerji Sözleşmeleri

Year 2025, Issue: 30, 109 - 136, 28.07.2025

Fatih Gökyurt

Abstract

Düzenleyici kurum olarak FERC’in enerji hizmetlerinde toptan satış sözleşmelerinde belirlenen fiyatlara hangi şartlarda müdahale edebileceği Mobile-Sierra doktrininin temelini oluşturmaktadır. Tarife belirleme dışında sözleşmelere müdahale yetkisi içeren bu alanda yasa ile belirlenen ‘adil ve makul’ ölçütü yanında içtihatla geliştirilen kamu yararı kriteri ABD İdare hukukundaki ‘kamu yararı’ kavramına ilişkin tartışmalara ışık tutması bakımından önem arz etmektedir.
Doktrinin temeli olan Mobile ve Sierra kararları ile bu alanda oluşturulan içtihat Yüksek Mahkemenin sonraki kararlarıyla daha da geliştirildiğinden doktrinin uygulamadaki koşul ve sınırları ile diğer boyutları da bu çerçevede ele alınmıştır. Bu çerçevede yasa ile belirlenen koşulların uygulamasının yargı kararlarıyla nasıl geliştiği ve değiştiği bu süreç içinde değerlendirilmiştir.
Yoğun bir düzenleme çerçevesine sahip olan enerji hukuku alanında sözleşmelerin idarenin yetkileri karşısındaki konumunun, sözleşme istikrarı ile düzenleme yetkisi arasındaki ilişkinin ve kamu yararı kavramının bu alandaki etkisinin düzenleyici kurumlar alanında önemli bir birikime sahip olan ABD hukuku çerçevesinde incelenmesinin Türk hukuku açısından da faydalı olabileceği değerlendirilmektedir.

Keywords

Regülasyon, enerji sözleşmeleri, kamu yararı, düzenleme yetkisi, tarife

MOBILE-SIERRA DOCTRINE AND ENERGY CONTRACTS

Abstract

The Mobile-Sierra doctrine outlines the circumstances under which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is authorized to intervene in wholesale energy contracts. Central to this doctrine are the legal standards of ‘just and reasonable’ pricing, along with the ‘public interest’ criteria that have been shaped by judicial interpretation. These standards are pivotal for understanding how the concept of ‘public interest’ is applied within U.S. administrative law.
Since the initial Mobile and Sierra decisions, and subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court, the doctrine has undergone significant development. This ongoing evolution has led to extensive debate about the practical conditions, limitations, and various dimensions of the doctrine. Changes in legal standards and judicial interpretations have continuously influenced how these conditions are applied.
Given the intensive regulatory framework of energy law, examining how contracts interact with regulatory authority, and the balance between ensuring contractual stability and exercising regulatory power, as well as the impact of the public interest concept within U.S. law, can provide valuable insights. Such an analysis could be particularly beneficial for understanding similar issues in Turkish law.

Keywords

Regulation, energy contracts, public interest, regulatory power, tariffs

Ethical Statement

There is no requirement of Ethics Committee Approval for this study.

References

• tl. City Elec. Co. v FERC, 295 F.3d 1 (D.C.Cir.2002).
• Arizona Corp. Com’n v F.E.R.C. 397 F.3d 952 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
• Boston Edison Co. v FERC 233 F.3d 60 (1st Cir.2000).
• Brent Allen, ‘Consumers versus Contracts: Morgan Stanley, Maine and the Mobile-Sierra Doctrine’ (2009) 1 San Diego J. Climate & Energy L. 315.
• Carmen L. Gentile, ‘The Mobile-Sierra Rule: Its Illustrious Past and Uncertain Future’ (2000) 21 Energy L.J. 353.
• David G. Tewksbury & Stephanie S. Lim, ‘Applying the Mobile-Sierra Doctrine to Market-Based Rate Contracts’ (2005) 26 Energy L.J. 437.
• David G. Tewksbury, Stephanie S. Lim, Grace Su, ‘New Chapters in the Mobile-Sierra Story: Application of The Doctrine After NRG Power Marketing LLC V. Maine Public Utilities Commission’ (2011) 32 Energy L.J. 433.
• David C. Hjelmfelt, ‘Fixed Rate Contracts Under The Federal Power and Natural Gas Acts’ (1979-1980) 57 Denv. L.J. 559.
• Federal Power Commission v Sierra Pacific Power Co. 350 U.S. 348 (1956).
• Grenig, Jay E, ‘Does the Mobile-Sierra Doctrine Apply When a Contract Is Challenged by a Noncontracting Third Party?’ (2009) 37 Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases; Chicago 112.
• Giuseppe Bellantuono, ‘Contract Law, Regulation and Competition in Energy Markets’ (2009) 10 Competition & Reg. Network Indus. 159.
• Harold Glenn Drain, ‘Union Pacific Fuels, Inc. v. FERC: The FERC’s Ability to Abrogate Natural Gas Transportation Contracts’ (1998) 33 Tulsa L.J. 931.
• Kansas Cities v. F.E.R.C. 723 F.2d 82 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
• Kerri M. Millikan, ‘Recent Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia: Energy Law’ (1999) 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 937.
• La. Power & Light Co. v FERC 587 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1979).
• Maine Public Utilities Com’n v. F.E.R.C. 520 F.3d 464, 380 (D.C.Cir.2008).
• McKenzie Schnell, ‘The Mobile-Sierra Doctrine: An Unlikely Friend for Opponents of ZeroRating’ (2018) 70 Federal Communications Law Journal 329.
• Michael A. Rosenhouse, Annotation, ‘Construction and Application of Mobile-Sierra Doctrine, Under Which Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Must Presume Gas or Electricity Rate Set in Freely Negotiated Wholesale Contract Meets Statutory “Just and Reasonable” Standard’ (2012) 62 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 427.
• Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County, Wash., 554 U.S. 527 (2008).
• Northeast Utilities. Serv. Co. v FERC 993 F.2d 937 (1st Cir. 1993).
• NRG Power Mktg., LLC v Maine Pub. Utilities Comm’n 130 S. Ct. 693, 701, 62 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 427 (2010).
• Papago Tribal Util. Auth. v F.E.R.C. 723 F.2d 950, 953 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
• Potomac Elec. Power Co. v F.E.R.C. 210 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
• Richard P. Bress, Michael J. Gergen, and Stephanie S. Lim, ‘The Business of the Court: A Deal Is Still a Deal: Morgan Stanley Capital Group v. Public Utility District No. 1’ (2007-2008) Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 285.
• San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v FERC 904 F.2d 727 (D.C.Cir.1990).
• Scott H. Strauss and Jeffrey A. Schwarz ‘The Mobile-Sierra Doctrine: A Return to its Statutory Roots’ (2007) 145 No. 5 Pub. Util. Fort. 60.
• Tenneco Oil Co. v Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 571 F.2d 834 (5th Cir. 1978).
• Texaco Inc. & Texaco Gas Mktg. Inc. v Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n 148 F.3d 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
• United Gas Pipe Line Co. v Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division, 358 U.S. 103 (1958)
• United Gas Pipe Line Co. v Mobile Gas Serv. Corp. 350 U.S. 332 (1956).
• Union Pac. Fuels, Inc. v F.E.R.C. 129 F.3d 157 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
• William A. Mogel, ‘The Federal Power Commission’s Authority to Set Area Rates By Rulemaking’ (1973) 5 Seton Hall L. Rev. 31 1973-1974, 41