The U.S. Supreme Court soon will issue a potentially far-reaching decision in a case involving Duke Energy Corp. What’s the upside for the electric industry?
FIT in the USA
Constitutional questions about state-mandated renewable tariffs.
ex rel. Moore , 487 U.S. 354, 371 (1988) (“FERC has exclusive authority to determine the reasonableness of wholesale rates.”); Entergy La., Inc., v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n , 539 U.S. 39, 47 (2003) (noting that the filed rate doctrine applies to the states through federal preemption); Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County Wash. v. FERC , 471 F.3d 1053, 1066 (9th Cir. 2006), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, Morgan Stanley Capital Group v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County Wash ., 128 S.Ct. 2733 (2008).
19. Mont.-Dakota Utils. Co. v. Nw. Pub. Serv. Co ., 341 U.S. 246, 256 (1951); Keogh v. Chi. & Nw. Ry, 260 U.S. 156, 163 (1922): See Ark. La Gas Co. v. Hall , 453 U.S. 571, 577–78 (1981): See also, People of Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy , 375 F.3d 831, 853 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Transmission Agency of N. Cal. v. Sierra Pac. Power Co ., 295 F.3d 918, 929 (9th Cir. 2002).
20. Ark. La Gas Co. v. Hall , 453 U.S. 571, 577–78 (1981).
21. People of Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy , 375 F.3d 831, 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted); see also Transmission Agency of N. Cal. v. Sierra Pac. Power Co. , 295 F.3d 918, 929 (9th Cir. 2002).
22. Id., 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3(b) (2006) (providing that a rate may not “exceed the incremental cost to the electric utility of alternative electric energy”); 18 C.F.R. 292.304(a)(2) (providing that no electric utility shall “pay more than the avoided costs for purchases”).
23. Windway Techs., Inc v. Midland Power Coop. , 2001 WL 1248741 at *4 (N.D. Iowa 2001) (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3(b)).
24. Steven R. Miles, Full-Avoided Cost Pricing Under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act: “Just and Reasonable” to Electric Consumers? , 69 Cornell L. Rev. 1267, 1284 n. 99 (1984) (citing Public Utility Rate Proposals of President Carter’s Energy Program: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Energy Conservation and Regulation of the Senate Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. pt. 1, at 189 (1977)).
25. 123 Congressional Record , 25,848 (1977) (statement of Sen. Percy).
26. The Florida Public Service Commission found that a Green-Pricing program does not violate PURPA and its implementing rules. However, the Florida PSC made it clear that the Commission did not answer the question of whether circumstances might exist where prices in excess of avoided cost could be borne by the general body of ratepayers, or the question of the amount the utility or its green electricity customers could pay. In re Fla. Power & Light Co. , 219 P.U.R.4th 46, 49 (Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 2002).
27. D.C. Denison, “NStar Green Seeks Rate Hike,” Boston Globe , March 6, 2010, B5.
28. Steven Ferrey, Net Metering , in 1 Encyclopedia. of Energy Engineering and Tech. 1096, 1098 (Barney L Capehart ed., 2007).
29. Ryan Wiser & Galen Barbose, Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States: A Status Report with Data Through 2007 , Report No. Lawrence