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/
Maybe this will provide perspective - Scalia’s dissent starts on page 39.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-840_k537.pdf
- He points out that the Federal Power Act prohibits FERC from regulating any sale of electricity other than wholesale...and points out that ‘wholesale’ is well defined in the act...and this doesn’t meet that definition. He even opines about a scenario in which, under this ruling, the states could have zero authority in all matters related to the sale of electricity.
So sorry, but whenever I hear the term, “It’s a tremendous win....for the environment”, it makes my ass pucker with fear and apprehension and I grab hold of my wallet.