This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/court-hands-administration-environmentalists-a-win-in-electricity-supply-ruling/2016/01/25/1c3bc1d0-c37a-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Court hands administration, environmentalists a win in electricity supply ruling Court hands administration, environmentalists a win in electricity supply ruling
(about 4 hours later)
The Supreme Court delivered a big win Monday for the Obama administration and environmentalists, ruling that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the authority to adopt a program that they say has saved money and prevented emergencies such as blackouts. The Supreme Court delivered a big win Monday to the Obama administration and environmentalists, ruling that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the authority to adopt a program that it says has saved money and prevented emergencies such as blackouts.
The approach, called demand response, requires electric market operators to compensate customers who lower their consumption of electricity during peak demand hours. The approach, called demand response, requires operators of electricity markets to compensate customers who lower their consumption during peak demand hours.
But FERC’s actions were challenged by electricity generators who said that FERC may only regulate wholesale sales of electricity and that its program intrudes on the retail market, which is the exclusive province of state regulators. FERC’s actions were challenged by electricity generators, who said that the commission could only regulate wholesale sales of electricity and that its program intruded on the retail market, which is the exclusive province of state regulators. The program has cost the electric companies profits.
But the court ruled 6 to 2 that FERC was within its powers. The court ruled, 6 to 2, that FERC was within its powers.
“FERC set the terms of transactions occurring in the organized wholesale markets so as to ensure the reasonableness of wholesale prices and the reliability of the interstate grid,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan, who said that is just what the Federal Power Act envisions. “It is a fact of economic life that the wholesale and retail markets in electricity, as in every other known product, are not hermetically sealed from each other,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority. But she added, “The commission’s rule addresses — and addresses only — transactions occurring on the wholesale market.”
She was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. She said the court would not read the Federal Power Act so narrowly that it would “halt a practice that so evidently enables the commission to fulfill its statutory duties of holding down prices and enhancing reliability in the wholesale energy market.”
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. recused himself from the case. Kagan was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
The Obama administration, environmental groups and some large consumers say demand response is a key mechanism for getting people to use less energy overall and, thus, reducing emissions of carbon dioxide or other pollutants. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. recused himself from the case, apparently because of a financial interest in one of the companies that is a party to the case.
Total electricity demand varies greatly, and when it peaks — usually in the afternoon or evening each day, but also seasonally, such as on very hot days — power companies have to bring additional power plants online to service that peak load. The Obama administration, environmental groups and some large consumers say demand response is a key mechanism for getting people to use less energy overall and, thus, reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Factories, big-box retailers and schools are among those that are paid for reducing their electrical use during peak times.
In doing so, the companies address the need for more electricity by adding more supply. But demand response also can reduce how much power people or companies use during these peak times. The White House praised the court’s decision.
“We applaud the Supreme Court’s decision and look forward to the continued growth of demand response programs across the country,” said Casey Roberts, staff attorney at the Sierra Club, in a statement Monday. “FERC’s demand response programs make energy cheaper, ensure the reliability of the grid and protect our air and water from fossil fuel pollution.” “It is good news for consumers, clean energy, reliability, and the overall economy,” said White House spokesman Frank J. Benenati. “This decision allows us to continue realizing billions in annual savings from innovative incentives and business models that ensure we use our electricity system efficiently as we integrate more energy efficiency and renewable energy onto the power grid.”
Vicki Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, called the ruling a “victory for customer freedom, customer choice and the vibrant market for low-cost, clean energy.”
Demand for electricity varies greatly, and when it peaks — usually in the afternoon or evening each day, but also seasonally, such as on very hot days — power companies have to bring additional power plants online to service that peak load.
In doing so, the companies address the need for more electricity by adding more supply. But demand response can reduce how much power people or companies use during these peak times.
The administration claimed that the program was an example of federal-state cooperation that had saved billions of dollars in wholesale costs and was an effective tool in preventing blackouts and brownouts.The administration claimed that the program was an example of federal-state cooperation that had saved billions of dollars in wholesale costs and was an effective tool in preventing blackouts and brownouts.
Scalia said the “demand response” scheme crosses over into regulating retail sales of electricity, which all agree is beyond the commission’s authority.
He said the majority adopted a “myopic view of retail pricing” in order to evade the “inconvenient fact that fiddling with the effective retail price of electric energy, be it through incentive payments or hypothetical credits, regulates retail sales of electric energy no less than does direct rate-setting.”
The case is Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association.The case is Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association.