Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:07:35.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Storage: Jurisdictional conflicts and state options

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2019

Nancy Lange  and
Ted Thomas
Nancy Lange
Affiliation:
Chair of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Ted Thomas*
Affiliation:
Chair of the Arkansas Public Service Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
*
a)Address all correspondence to Ted Thomas at tthomas@psc.state.ar.us
Get access

Abstract

State policymakers and regulators should consider how to respond to the emergence of new storage technologies while observing the regulatory and legal proceedings that will draw the line between state and federal jurisdiction over matters related to storage.

The emergence of new energy storage is challenging traditional jurisdictional lines and giving state policy makers new things to consider. This article discusses conflicts in jurisdiction and offers options for policy makers to consider with regard to storage technologies.

Keywords

storagesustainabilityenvironmentally protective
Type
Perspective
Information
MRS Energy & Sustainability , Volume 6 , 2019 , E4
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Federal Power Act Section 201(b)(1).Google Scholar
Electric Storage Participation in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at 143.Google Scholar
New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1, 7 (2002).Google Scholar
Lindh, F. and Bone, T.: State jurisdiction over distributed generators. Energy Law J. 34, 2 (2013).Google Scholar
Federal Power Comm. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 404 U.S. 453 (1972).Google Scholar
For a thorough discussion of this issue as well as other questions of jurisdiction, see The Double Struggle: Federal vs. State, Monopoly vs. Competition, seminar materials prepared by Scott Hempling (2016). Mr. Hempling’s piece does not signal agreement or disagreement with Lindh; it is cited here for background.Google Scholar
FERC Docket No. RM18-9-000, Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments (April 27, 2018), Panel 2, question 6.Google Scholar
Calpine Corporation, et al. v. PJM Interconnection, LLC, 163 FERC ¶ 61,236 (2018).Google Scholar
Interstate Renewable Energy Council: Charging Ahead: An Energy Storage Guide for Policymakers (April, 2017).Google Scholar
Interstate Renewable Energy Council: Charging Ahead: An Energy Storage Guide for Policymakers (April, 2017); p. 13.Google Scholar
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Order in Docket M-15-962. June 28, 2016.Google Scholar
PJM Interconnection L.L.C., 149 FERC ¶ 61,185 at p. 12.Google Scholar