Supreme Court

Order 745: A Time Bomb for Electricity Consumers

One of the worst orders FERC has ever produced

Order 745 overcompensates demand response, unduly discriminates against wholesale suppliers, sanctions and institutionally enforces the exercise of monopsony market power, and will ultimately raise electricity prices.
Byline: 

Robert Borlick

Read Entire Article

The Price is Right?

Demand response on appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.

It could well be that demand response results in a more stable pricing environment that seems less risky to investors.
Byline: 

Steve Isser and Bob King

Read Entire Article

High Stakes at the High Court

U.S. Supreme Court to decide demand response case.

Cost-conscious commercial and industrial customers may be oblivious to the legal issues surrounding their energy choices, but their demand response providers are not. The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide whether those services will be regulated by the federal government or state utility commissions.
Byline: 

Ken Silverstein and Bruce W. Radford

Read Entire Article

$9 Billion at Risk

If PJM markets should lose demand response as a capacity resource.

The AEMA sees the self-help DR revolution as a key to America’s recent industrial renaissance: “If demand response is removed from wholesale markets,” the group says, then “the electric grid is back to the rotary phone.”
Byline: 

Bruce W. Radford

Read Entire Article

Triggering & Tailoring

What the Supreme Court said, and didn’t.

Justice Scalia saw the need for tailoring as proof that EPA’s Triggering Rule was mistaken.
Byline: 

Bruce W. Radford

Read Entire Article

The Politics of Carbon

Supreme Court may ultimately clarify EPA’s authority under Clean Power Plan.

The Supreme Court questions federal agency authority over greenhouse gas emissions in the recent case of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA.
Byline: 

Ken Silverstein

Read Entire Article