Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Storage: Jurisdictional conflicts and state options

  • Nancy Lange (a1) and Ted Thomas (a2)

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.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Storage: Jurisdictional conflicts and state options
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Storage: Jurisdictional conflicts and state options
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Storage: Jurisdictional conflicts and state options
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

a)Address all correspondence to Ted Thomas at tthomas@psc.state.ar.us

References

Hide All
1.Federal Power Act Section 201(b)(1).
2.Electric Storage Participation in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 at 143.
3.New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1, 7 (2002).
4.Lindh, F. and Bone, T.: State jurisdiction over distributed generators. Energy Law J. 34, 2 (2013).
5.Federal Power Comm. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 404 U.S. 453 (1972).
6.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.
7.FERC Docket No. RM18-9-000, Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments (April 27, 2018), Panel 2, question 6.
8.Calpine Corporation, et al. v. PJM Interconnection, LLC, 163 FERC ¶ 61,236 (2018).
9.Interstate Renewable Energy Council: Charging Ahead: An Energy Storage Guide for Policymakers (April, 2017).
10.Interstate Renewable Energy Council: Charging Ahead: An Energy Storage Guide for Policymakers (April, 2017); p. 13.
11.Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Order in Docket M-15-962. June 28, 2016.
12.PJM Interconnection L.L.C., 149 FERC ¶ 61,185 at p. 12.

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed