California's Top Lawyer May Sue Over Power Ruling (Update1)

Bloomberg Energy News ^ | August 7, 2002 | Michael B. Marois

[snopercod]

Sacramento, California, Aug. 7 (Bloomberg) -- California's top attorney said the state can't comply with a demand by U.S. energy regulators to change the makeup of the governing board of the state's power-grid agency, and may sue to halt the order.

[snopercod]

Lockyear will lose. The U.S. Constitution is clear that one state can't apply tariffs to goods from another state, as California is essentially doing with electric energy.

This is just a stalling tactic to push the final decision until after the elections.

[snopercod]

flag

[libertylover]

Sounds like the environmental wachos don't like it when someone else waves a majic wand and orders them to jump so high. It's OK for them to do it to auto makers but not OK for the feds to do it to them.

[randita]

So the hand-picked board Davis set up in January 2001 was unconstitutional. I wonder why FERC waited so long to challenge it.

[randita]

The governor also said he would support a ballot measure this year or in 2004 that asks Californians whether control of hundreds of thousands of miles of transmission wires should be in state or federal hands.

This is a quote from a LA Times article on the subject.

[Dog Gone]

The transmission wires should be in private hands. Control of them should be under FERC, just like the interstate freeway system is federal.

This is a strange battle between FERC and Davis. Usually when we think of battles between states and the Federal Government, we think of the feds trying to restrict rights and micromanage our affairs. But, in this case, it's the Feds who are trying to open up markets and deregulate, while Davis is trying to consolidate and re-regulate.

The traditional roles are reversed here.

[Robert357]

Thanks, for all the newspapers that are running variations on this story, it is clear that press releases for the Attorney General and the Governor's office have papered all the newspapers.

This is either bluff or very poor legal research

What the reporter didn't question was the legality of the State Legislature's action which changed the ISO board, that had been set up under FERC requirements. FERC is very clear in its ability to regulate inter-state commerce. FERC has been involved with many, many lawsuits going to the US Supreme Court over its ability to regulate, electric, natural gas, and hydro power projects. I have seen some of that and been involved with folks on the loosing end of such arguments.

One in particular comes to mind. There is a small city in Washington State, Centralia, that has a small 12 MW hydro project the Yelm Hydro project. There is a power line from that project to the City. The City uses all of the electricity from the hydro project. Therefore, the power is generated in the state, used in the state, and doesn't get out. FERC argued that the power off-set electricity supplied by the Bonneville Power Administration and that impacted interstate Commerce. They also argued that since logs once flowed down the river and were turned into lumber that was sold across state lines, that river and its modification also impacted interestate commerce. The project was originally built a long time ago before FERC was created and so they felt they didn't need to get a FERC license. The Court said no, that the City needed to get a FERC license.

For many many years Texas had no interconnections that crossed state lines and so its utilities transmission systems avoided FERC jurisdiction. California is absolutely dependent on Wyoming, the PNW, Nevada and other states for the electricity it needs. California is not even close to self sufficient. Their arguments that control of their transmission is not interestate commerce have been argued and lost many times over.

This looks like it is much more for show than for go!