Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Storage: Jurisdictional conflicts and state options

  • Perspective
  • Published:
MRS Energy & Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 01 July 2020

This article has been updated

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Federal Power Comm. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 404 U.S. 453 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Interstate Renewable Energy Council: Charging Ahead: An Energy Storage Guide for Policymakers (April, 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Interstate Renewable Energy Council: Charging Ahead: An Energy Storage Guide for Policymakers (April, 2017); p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Order in Docket M-15-962. June 28, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  12. PJM Interconnection L.L.C., 149 FERC ¶ 61,185 at p. 12.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

    Nancy Lange (Chair of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission)

  2. Little Rock, Arkansas, USA

    Ted Thomas (Chair of the Arkansas Public Service Commission)

Authors
  1. Nancy Lange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ted Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ted Thomas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lange, N., Thomas, T. Storage: Jurisdictional conflicts and state options. MRS Energy & Sustainability 6, 9 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1557/mre.2019.9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1557/mre.2019.9

Keywords

Search

Navigation