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

To: thackney

“Although only Texas, Alaska and Hawaii operate their grid solely within state borders.”

The crux of this case is the government’s expanding from wholesale jurisdiction into retail jurisdiction. I don’t live in Texas, Alaska, or Hawaii...but a state commission sets retail electricity rates - at least for now...this ruling could change that.


25 posted on 01/26/2016 9:58:50 AM PST by lacrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: lacrew
The crux of this case is the government's expanding from wholesale jurisdiction into retail jurisdiction.

I don't think that is correct. The FERC Order 745 set standards for demand response practices and pricing in wholesale markets and brought the practice under the agency's jurisdiction.

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

29 posted on 01/26/2016 10:10:18 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: lacrew; PROCON

Perhaps this provides a better perspective.

Since 1935, as part the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has had the authority to regulate the demand response market. FERC manages the compensation related to demand response for the wholesale electricity markets, in which electricity is competitively bought and sold.

About five years ago, to help maintain competition for demand response, FERC ruled that companies that deliver demand response services should receive the same rates for conserving electricity as companies that generate electricity. Naturally, companies that make money off of producing electricity (and not conserving it) didn’t like that ruling. The Electric Power Supply Association, representing electric power producers, took FERC to court and challenged the order.

In 2014, a D.C. Circuit court sided with the power producers and found that states have exclusive jurisdiction over the demand response market, not the federal government. Last year, the Supreme Court agreed to take on the case and then heard oral arguments.

On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld FERC’s order that it can regulate demand response in wholesale markets and maintain the same rates for electricity that’s either produced or saved. Six judges sided with FERC, while two judges dissented (and one recused himself).

The news is cause for celebration for demand response providers of all kinds including EnerNOC and Nest. EnerNOC’s shares rose almost 70% on the deal to trade at close to $7 in mid-day trading. Tim Healy, chairman and CEO of EnerNOC, said in a statement: “Today’s decision is a tremendous win for all energy consumers, for the economy, and for the environment.”

The ruling is also important for the creation of more competition and tech innovation for the U.S. power grid. The power industry is a hybrid of regulated entities and competitive wholesale markets, and has been notoriously slow to adopt new technology.

http://fortune.com/2016/01/25/supreme-court-demand-response-ruling/


30 posted on 01/26/2016 10:20:42 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

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