CPR Scholars Submit Amicus Brief in Supreme Court Case FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association

by Erin Kesler

July 16, 2015

Today, CPR Member Scholars, with a larger group of law professors, submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) v. Electric Power Supply Association.

The professors submitted the brief because, "they believe that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit made serious errors when it held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) lacked authority to regulate operators’ rules for demand response (DR) in the wholesale electricity markets. That holding is contrary to the text, history, and structure of the Federal Power Act (FPA), which mandates that FERC must remedy 'practices . . . affecting' wholesale electricity rates to ensure such rates are just and reasonable. Moreover, it ignores FERC’s reasonable interpretation of its statutory authority."

They argue that, "FERC reasonably determined it had jurisdiction to remedy wholesale market dysfunctions with respect to demand response pricing."

The brief also notes, “In addition to ignoring the case law that supports FERC jurisdiction over DR, the D.C. Circuit used a flawed interpretation of FERC’s authority, based on what it deemed 'direct regulation of the retail market—a matter exclusively within state control.' 753 F.3d at 224. In taking this unprecedented step, the D.C. Circuit announced a novel interpretation of § 201(a). That section states that FERC’s reach 'extend[s] only to those matters which are not subject to regulation by the States.' 16 U.S.C. § 824(a). If allowed to stand, the D.C. Circuit’s effort to rewrite the FPA to contain an exclusive jurisdictional sphere for any activity a state regulates will threaten established FERC market initiatives far beyond DR.”

And that, “The D.C. Circuit’s erroneous reading of FERC’s remedial authority, premised on its faulty construction of § 201(a), would create a glaring gap in jurisdiction to regulate wholesale markets.”

To read the entire brief, click here.

The brief was filed by Richard Pierce, Emily Hammond, Joel Eisen and Jim Rossi. The full list of amici includes Todd Aagaard, Sara Bronin, William Boyd, Ann Carlson, David Dana, Seth Davis, Timothy Duane, Michael Dworkin, Joshua Fershee, Sam Kalen, Alexandra Klass, Felix Mormann, Hari Osofsky, Uma Outka, Alan Palmiter, Melissa Powers, Miriam Seifter, David Spence, Amy Stein, Joseph Tomain, Hannah Wisemann, and Steven Weissman.

 

 

Tagged as: court watch FERC
Be the first to comment on this entry.
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us (info@progressivereform.org) and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Erin Kesler

Erin Kesler was a Communications Specialist for the Center for Progressive Reform.

The Center for Progressive Reform

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, #150-513
Washington, DC 20001
info@progressivereform.org
202.747.0698

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015