1、116 U.S.C. 824(b).216 U.S.C. 824d(a).3Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U.S. 354 (1988); NantahalaPower & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953 (1986).4The filed rate doctrine states that “interstate power rates filed with FERC or fixed by FERCmust be given binding effec
2、t by state utility commissions determining intrastate rates.”Nantahala Power & Light, at 962. The filed rate doctrine applies to state regulators because ofthedoctrineoffederalpreemptionassetforthintheConstitutionsSupremacyClause. ArkansasLouisiana Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S. 571, 581-582 (1981).Congr
3、essional Research Service The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS21559July 1, 2003Entergy Louisiana, Inc. v. Louisiana PublicService Commission: Preemptive Effect ofFederal Energy Regulatory CommissionOrdersMichael V. SeitzingerLegislative AttorneyAmer
4、ican Law DivisionSummaryIn Entergy Louisiana, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission the UnitedStates Supreme Court faced the issue of whether a Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) tariff delegating discretion to the regulated entity to determineprecisecostallocationpre-emptedaFERCordert
