The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), a grid operator, states, and other parties just filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could decide whether Americans have access to low-cost, clean and reliable electricity.
The case, EPSA v. FERC, revolves around demand response, a resource that helps keep prices low and the lights on – and does so while also being environmentally friendly.
In 2013, for example, demand response saved customers in the mid-Atlantic region close to $12 billion. And during the polar vortex, which threatened the North-East with freezing cold in 2014, the same resource helped prevent black-outs.
The clean energy rule at issue in this case is called FERC Order 745. EDF has been writing about this demand response case throughout the past year. We’ve been fighting for low-cost demand response and we’ll keep fighting in the Supreme Court. Read More
You’ve probably heard the saying “life is a journey,” but this could not be more true for EPSA v. FERC, the landmark demand response case clean energy experts have been eyeing for more than a year as it’s made its way through the U.S. legal system.
Starting in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals back in May 2014, EPSA v. FERC (also known as the “FERC Order 745 case”) now rests with the U.S. Supreme Court where, today, it was given new life when the Justices accepted the U.S. Solicitor General’s request for review submitted on behalf of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). Review was granted on both petitions, which have been consolidated, by FERC and Enernoc, et. al, case numbers 14-840 and 14-841. The Supreme Court granted review to both central questions, one about FERC’s authority and a second about challenges to central provisions to the order providing for fair valuation of demand response. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), along with a broad coalition of consumer advocates and environmental groups, supported FERC’s petition before the Supreme Court earlier this year and will continue to do so as the matter is reviewed by the high Court.
The decision to review the case is great news for demand response, a voluntary energy conservation tool that relies on people and technology, not power plants, to affordably meet our country’s rising electricity needs. It’s also a welcome sign for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – the government entity tasked with ensuring our electric rates are ‘just and reasonable’ – and anyone in favor of cleaner, more reliable, lower-cost energy. Read More
If reducing climate pollution from power plants were a football game, the U.S. team would be halfway to the goal line while fans were still singing the national anthem.
That is, we have already gotten about halfway to the expected goals of the Clean Power Plan – before the rule is even final.
The Clean Power Plan is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) historic effort to place the first-ever limits on climate pollution from our country’s existing fleet of fossil fuel-fired power plants. When it’s finalized this summer, it’s expected to call for a 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions compared to 2005 levels — but U.S. power plant emissions have already fallen 15 percent compared to 2005 levels.
That’s because renewable energy, energy efficiency resources, and natural gas generation have been steadily deployed and growing for years. Even conservative estimates forecast continued growth of these resources — which makes last week’s report from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) seem really strange.
NERC’s report about the Clean Power Plan’s impacts on electric grid reliability makes predictions that starkly contrast from the progress we’re already seeing.
How did this departure from reality happen? Read More
Demand response. It’s a cost-effective energy resource that pays customers to use less energy. Few people even know exists, but it invisibly impacts the life of so many Americans. It’s a clean energy resource that embodies precisely what electricity can and should be: cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient than traditional fuel sources.
We’ve written about demand response at length, discussing a potential case before the U.S. Supreme Court involving the resource and what the road ahead could look like. Today, however, we’re telling the story of how the resource got here. Read More
Last June, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the first ever national carbon pollution standards for existing power plants. Fossil fuel-fired power plants account for almost 40% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, making them the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation and one of the single largest categories of greenhouse gas sources in the world.
Under the Clean Power Plan, these emissions will decline to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 – accompanied by a significant decline in other harmful pollutants from the power sector, such as sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. The power sector is already halfway to this target, already 15% below 2005 levels.
The EPA has carefully designed the Clean Power Plan to provide extensive flexibility so that states and power companies can continue to deliver a steady flow of electricity while deploying cost-effective measures to reduce carbon pollution over the next fifteen years. Read More
Earlier this week, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), along with 11 other environmental and consumer groups, joined forces in asking the Supreme Court to hear an important case involving an energy resource that saves families and businesses money, improves electric grid reliability, and reduces carbon emissions: demand response. We’ve written a lot about demand response and the federal case that could determine its future (also known as EPSA v. FERC or the FERC Order 745 case), and for good reason – the legal and policy frameworks governing demand response are critical to our clean energy future.
Simply put, demand response relies on people and technology, not just power plants, to meet electricity demand. It balances stress on the electric grid by reducing demand for electricity, rather than increasing supply. This makes our grid more efficient, reduces harmful air emissions from fossil fuel plants, and keeps electricity prices lower.
And these aren’t small savings – demand response cumulatively saves customers billions of dollars that would otherwise go toward more costly polluting resources. In 2013 alone, for example, demand response saved customers in the mid-Atlantic region $11.8 billion. Read More