4 ms·
Is the argument that a self-contained grid means no interstate commerce really that strong? With this Supreme Court, OK, fine, maybe trying to look at precedent
by nocoiner 3y ago
Is the argument that a self-contained grid means no interstate commerce really that strong? With this Supreme Court, OK, fine, maybe trying to look at precedent is a sucker’s game, but I would have thought Wickard v. Fillburn would have put an end to that argument 80 years ago.
Of course, if the relevant statutes only apply to transmission across state lines, then maybe that’s the answer (I recall that’s how Southwest was able to start with an unregulated route system by flying only between Texas cities at first) but if not, I would think that regulators could establish a jurisdiction basis over 80 GW of electrical generation.
- rayiner 3y agoIt’s questionable whether Wickard is still good law. But more importantly, the Federal Power Act is specifically addressed to interstate and wholesale electric sales. That’s why FERC doesn’t have jurisdiction over ERCOT. Note that electric generators in Texas certainly are subject to EPA regulation, which also rests on the Commerce Power. Pollution produced by Texas plants does travel interstate, even if sales of wholesale electricity do not. But for the same reason, the complaint about ERCOT being a way to bypass federal pollution regulation is nonsensical.
- jcrawfordor 3y agoYes, as I understand it, the long-running political tension between ERCOT and FERC primarily has to do with rate and transmission agreement regulations, not environmental regulation. That said, FERC actually does have a fairly substantial environmental regulation function in that they handle NEPA matters for electrical initiatives triggered by federal policy. So avoiding FERC regulation may avoid having to complete NEPA process (e.g. EIS) in some cases, but it doesn't help with requirements under Clean Air Act/Clean Water Act, which are typically the more onerous for power plants.