SCOTUScast 11-7-15 featuring James Coleman James Coleman November 07, 2015
On October 14, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association and EnerNOC v. Electric Power Supply Association.
These consolidated cases involve the efforts of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to specify the methodology that operators in the wholesale electricity market use when compensating users for a commitment to reduce their consumption at particular times, a phenomenon known as “demand response.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit determined that FERC lacked statutory authority to impose such a methodology. The Supreme Court agreed to consider the following two questions:
(1) Whether FERC reasonably concluded that it has authority under the Federal Power Act to regulate the rules used by operators of wholesale electricity markets to pay for reductions in electricity consumption and to recoup those payments through adjustments to wholesale rates; and (2) Whether the D.C. Circuit erred in holding that the rule issued by FERC is arbitrary and capricious.
Justice Alito appears to be recused from this case.
To discuss the case, we have James Coleman, who is assistant professor at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Law and Haskayne School of Business. Federalism & Separation of Powers and Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Groups Podcast
Erik S. Jaffe October 21, 2015
In a case that could have serious implications about the limits of judicial review, the Supreme Court will be deciding a narrow statutory interpretation question. The initial question is whether FERC has authority to regulate the rules used by operators of wholesale-electricity markets to pay for reductions in electricity consumption and to recoup those payments through adjustments to wholesale rates. But wrapped within that question is how much deference the Supreme Court is willing to give FERC on this matter.
Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast
- Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Sole Practitioner, Erik S. Jaffe, PC
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of the EPA. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can regulate, as a stationary source of emissions, power plants only if EPA concludes that "regulation is appropriate and necessary." The Court, in a split decision, held that the EPA acted unreasonably when it deemed cost of the regulations irrelevant when it decided to regulate power plants. But what does that mean for the EPA? Will the decision have an impact for other regulatory agencies?
Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference
- Andrew Grossman, Associate, Baker & Hostetler, and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute
The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new regulations for CO2 emission reductions from existing power plants. The proposal requires states to implement the Agency’s Clean Power Plan. Proponents argue that it is an essential measure to protect vital natural resources; opponents argue that it will be massively costly and logistically difficult to implement (particularly given the timeframes required in the proposed regulations), and that it robs the states of their sovereign power. Our panel of experts will discuss the underlying legal authority for EPA’s proposal, the appropriate federalism model for regulation of CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act, and the policy implications.
This panel was presented on June 18, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC during the Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference.
The Clean Power Plan: A Bridge too Far?
9:40 – 11:10 a.m.
- Mr. David Doniger, Natural Resources Defense Council
- Mr. Mark W. DeLaquil, Baker & Hostetler LLP
- Mr. Robert M. Sussman, Sussman & Associates
- Mr. Misha Tseytlin, West Virginia Attorney General's Office
- Moderator: Ms. Elana Schor, Politico
June 18, 2015 Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast
In what has become a highly visible challenge to the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act, the D.C. Court of Appeals heard oral argument on April 16, 2015. The case is being viewed by some as a fundamental test of executive authority and the judiciary’s willingness to evaluate and rein in possible overreach. Is the rule, now in proposed form, ripe for challenge, at least in part because compliance with the rule requires a great deal of planning and expense even before its adoption? Has the EPA overreached and, if so, will the court intervene? Or has the EPA properly utilized its statutory rulemaking authority for what all parties indicate will be an important change in the way coal-fired power plants are able to operate?
- Robert R. Gasaway, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP