FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 01/26/2016 8:33:50 AM PST by PROCON
Linky only.
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."
Let me guess who voted to increase federal power.
Every “liberal” on the court, right?
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
States should disobey this unlawful order.
The Esteemed Justices of SCOTUS, in addition to the finest in legal training, are all Electrical Engineers.
Who Knew??
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.
Put on a black robe and you're an expert on everything.
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.
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.
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
Of course.
Federal rights good
State's rights bad
Rinse, repeat
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.
The government just works full time to make it harder to earn a living and buy basic necessities.
This is a prelude to national smart metering being codified into law.
Roberts and Kennedy, of course, join to give the left a strong majority.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-840_k537.pdf
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.