Public Utilities Reports

PUR Guide 2012 Fully Updated Version

Available NOW!
PUR Guide

This comprehensive self-study certification course is designed to teach the novice or pro everything they need to understand and succeed in every phase of the public utilities business.

Order Now

Carbon and the Constitution

State GHG policies confront federal roadblocks.

Fortnightly Magazine - April 2009

auction practices and theories, see generally Ferrey, Law of Independent Power, supra, § 9.

47. ISO New England, Inc., ISO New England Manual for Market Operations: Manual M-11 passim (2008) (taking effect Oct. 1, 2008).

48. Ferrey, Law of Independent Power , supra, § 9.26.

49. Julie A. Fitch, Dir. of Policy and Planning, Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, Address at the Joint Workshop of the CPUC and California Energy Commission: Context, Principles, and Key Questions for Allowance Allocation in the Electricity Sector (Apr. 21-22, 2008), available at: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/Published/Graphics/82593.PDF (Attachment 15) .

50. “Emissions Deepen over California Emissions-Allowance Plan,” Carbon Control News, June 9, 2008, at 3-4 (available at: http://www.Carboncontrolnews.com).

51. Pre-Workshop Comments of Dynegy on Allocation Issues at 8, Order Instituting Rulemaking to Implement the Commission’s Procurement Incentive Framework and to Examine the Integration of Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards into Procurement Policies , R.06-04-009, D.07-07-018, 2007 Cal. P.U.C. LEXIS 330 (2007) .

52. Kristin Grenfell, Nautral Res. Def. Counsel, Memorandum to California Air Resources Board Staff Re: NRDC Comments on Allowance Allocation Issues (2008).

53. See generally Carolyn Whetzel, Western States Release Draft Policies for Allocating Emissions Alowances, 39 Env’t Rep. (BNA) 702 (Apr. 11, 2008) ; Western Climate Initiative (2008), available at: http://westernclimateinitiative.org/.

54. States for Preemption?, Carbon Control News, March 26, 2008.

55. N.Y. State Dep’t. of Envt’l. Conservation, Notice of Pre-Proposal of New York RGGI Rule (2006).

56. Id.

57. 461 U.S. 190, 216 (1983).

58. 16 U.S.C. § 824(d) (2006).

59. E.g., Ark. Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 368 F.2d 376 (8th Cir. 1966); Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953 (1986); New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 331 (1982).

60. In re Sinclair Mach. Prods., Inc., 498 A.2d 696, 706 (N.H. 1985).

61. However, the Supreme Court has determined that Congress, in enacting the Federal Power Act, intended to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the FERC to regulate interstate wholesale utility rates. Fed. Power Comm’n v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 376 U.S. 205, 216 (1964).

62. See Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953, 963 (1986); Miss. Power & Light Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U.S. 354, 372 (1988)); Entergy La., Inc., v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 539 U.S. 39 (2003).

63. Indep. Energy Producers Ass’n v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 36 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding no separate basis for the state PUC to act to establish a premium price for renewable low-carbon power projects).

64. S. Cal. Edison Co., 70 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,215 (1995).

65. See, e.g., Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637 (1971), superseded by statute, Act of Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-598, 92 Stat. 2593.

66. Entergy La., Inc., v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 539 U.S. 39 (2003).

67. See Ferry, Law of Independent Power , supra, § 10:87, at 10-406 (describing FERC-approved tariffs for ISO operations in these states).

68. See McKibben, supra,

Pages