Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court upholds U.S. effort to control peak power use, prevent blackouts
usatoday | Jan. 25, 2016 | Richard Wolf

Posted on 01/26/2016 8:33:50 AM PST by PROCON

Linky only.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; climatechange; electricity; energy; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; statesrights; ussc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/25/supreme-court-electricity-rates-blackout-brownout/76568548/

The idea is to control demand rather than increase supply, which can be more expensive and less environmentally sound.

Two major problems here:

First, the USSC is now basing decisions based on the false "science" of climate change.

Second, as the two dissenting Justices pointed out:

This regulatory power is, "a power reserved for the states."

1 posted on 01/26/2016 8:33:51 AM PST by PROCON
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PROCON; Nachum

Let me guess who voted to increase federal power.
Every “liberal” on the court, right?


2 posted on 01/26/2016 8:36:24 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

3 posted on 01/26/2016 8:36:42 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

States should disobey this unlawful order.


4 posted on 01/26/2016 8:37:15 AM PST by HomerBohn (Liberals and slinkies: they're good for nothing, but you smile as you shove them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

The Esteemed Justices of SCOTUS, in addition to the finest in legal training, are all Electrical Engineers.

Who Knew??


5 posted on 01/26/2016 8:37:20 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

The Supreme Court has no business at all rendering an opinion on the question one way or the other. It is outside their Constitutional purview in my opinion.


6 posted on 01/26/2016 8:37:53 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Put on a black robe and you're an expert on everything.

7 posted on 01/26/2016 8:41:18 AM PST by Snickering Hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

This is not something new or different. It has been done for decades in the industrial power market.

For example, I did work for a Natural Gas Storage facility. We used large compressors to pump Natural Gas into a depleted reservoir during off-peak periods and let it flow back out during high peak demand periods.

We had to keep enough supply in the ground to meet a future peak demand. Typical market orders were on a per month basis. We would shut down for a few hours on a few days a year to ease load on the electrical grid.

In exchange, we got a very cheap electrical rate. We owned our own 138kV Substation.

It is not about climate change. It is cheaper to find those customers whose load demand can be postponed versus running a peak, inefficient gas or other fast generator a few hours a year. Less cost and less exhaust.

I don’t see hospitals and schools fitting this role.


8 posted on 01/26/2016 8:42:12 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
It is not about climate change.

Apparently you didn't read the article because, in part, the decision was based on it.

I understand your supply and demand argument, but the underlying conundrum is that they are "encouraging" consumers to use less electricity or else pay a higher rate.

Not to mention the states rights issue.

9 posted on 01/26/2016 8:47:34 AM PST by PROCON (Proud CRUZader!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Next up, the box-cars to the re-education centers.

I mean, there’s essentially NO limit to what the Fed govt CAN do, Constitutions be damned, no? /I wish


10 posted on 01/26/2016 8:51:08 AM PST by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Every "liberal" on the court, right?

Of course.

Federal rights good

State's rights bad

Rinse, repeat

11 posted on 01/26/2016 8:55:20 AM PST by PROCON (Proud CRUZader!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I think the new part is federal intrusion into state energy markets. A camel’s nose under a tent flap that could eventually lead to federal mandates/restrictions on household energy use.

And since this is not off-peak use, but rather reduction in grid use, the article discusses incredibly wasteful strategies such as battery storage and solar arrays (no doubt subsidized by some tentacle of the government) to allow ‘hospitals and schools’ to get this discount.


12 posted on 01/26/2016 9:05:14 AM PST by lacrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

The government just works full time to make it harder to earn a living and buy basic necessities.


13 posted on 01/26/2016 9:05:56 AM PST by Crucial (At the heart all leftidsts s the fear that the truth is bigger than themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

This is a prelude to national smart metering being codified into law.


14 posted on 01/26/2016 9:16:57 AM PST by headstamp 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Roberts and Kennedy, of course, join to give the left a strong majority.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-840_k537.pdf


15 posted on 01/26/2016 9:19:07 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON
Apparently you didn't read the article because, in part, the decision was based on it.

I did read the article. I saw where environmental groups made the claim, but I don't see that in the article as part of the decision. Would you point out the text you claim I missed?

Demand shaving is a very normal part of a healthy grid. We do it internally in industrial facilities as well as out on the grid. If you don't, you end up with great expense building out generation and distribution facilities designed for a peak a few hours a year that easily could have been reduced.

Just for background, I'm an electrical engineer, specialized in power system. I now normally work in oil, gas or petrochem facilities but started in the electric utility world.

16 posted on 01/26/2016 9:21:19 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

Smart metering is the first thing that came to my mind. A lot of people think worrying about Smart Meters is black helicopter stuff...but I can very easily see a federal rate structure, where those of us who go over our monthly allotment will pay through the nose...except for movie stars and politicians, of course.


17 posted on 01/26/2016 9:22:16 AM PST by lacrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: thackney

No, no, I’m not attacking your credentials, my lament is that, whether implied or not, the liberal justices repeatedly base their decisions on liberal dogma rather than constitutional muster.


18 posted on 01/26/2016 9:28:04 AM PST by PROCON (Proud CRUZader!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lacrew
I think the new part is federal intrusion into state energy markets.

In that, I agree it is a problem. Although only Texas, Alaska and Hawaii operate their grid solely within state borders.

I don't agree this is not about peak use. If you read about this from a more technical point of view, rather than main stream media trying to claim an unrelated point, you may see it differently.

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-ferc-order-745-affirming-federal-role-in-demand-resp/412668/

In a 6-2 decision, the justices ruled the agency was within its authority under the Federal Power Act when it issued Order 745, which set standards for demand response practices and pricing in wholesale markets and brought the practice under the agency's jurisdiction.

https://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/Files/20110315105757-RM10-17-000.pdf

19 posted on 01/26/2016 9:37:02 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

You said:

“Apparently you didn’t read the article because, in part, the decision was based on it.”

I said:

“I did read the article. I saw where environmental groups made the claim, but I don’t see that in the article as part of the decision. Would you point out the text you claim I missed?”

Would you please point out what you think I missed?


20 posted on 01/26/2016 9:38:28 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson