October Term 2009 · Docket 08-674

Does the Mobile-Sierra doctrine bind noncontracting parties to contract rates?

NRG Power Marketing and the Maine Public Utilities Commission dispute whether third parties can challenge contract rates under federal energy law.

Official caption: NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm’n
Latest argument session: 2009-11-03
Latest official Court activity: 2009-11-03
Latest verified event: Argued
Sources analyzed through: Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

Argument 1 · 2009-11-03

What happened at the argument
Jeffrey Lamken argued for NRG. He stated the case concerns a bedrock principle of federal energy law. He asserted the public interest standard applies to all challengers. He emphasized the importance of the Mobile-Sierra doctrine.
Michael Miller argued for Maine. He stated the lower court erred in its holding. He argued the standard is inapplicable to noncontracting third parties. He distinguished contract rates from tariff rates.
Chief Justice Roberts questioned the breadth of the protection. He noted the importance of preserving contract stability. He asked why third parties are bound by the contract.
Justice Sotomayor asked about the binding nature of the rule. She inquired if it binds all types of third parties. She sought clarification on the challenger's position.

Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 35-13 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 35-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-45

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of the Mobile-Sierra doctrine. The doctrine protects contract rates from challenge. The dispute centers on who may challenge those rates. NRG argues the protection applies to all challengers. Maine argues only contracting parties receive this protection. The Supreme Court must define the doctrine's reach.