Ari Peskoe

Carbon pricing in regional wholesale power markets is a good if not necessary step to combat climate change and ensure reasonable rates for electricity customers. That was the consensus yesterday among 30 energy sector panelists who discussed the pricing mechanism before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In an all-day, long-anticipated virtual conference, an array of academics, grid operators and utility executives discussed FERC’s legal authority, various designs for adding a carbon price in regional markets — and potential pitfalls… That could send a signal to states that they can develop carbon pricing programs without fear that FERC would reject those proposals, Dennis said…Experts on the first panel yesterday focused on FERC’s legal authority to implement carbon pricing in wholesale markets. Kate Konschnik, the director of climate and energy programs at Duke University, and Ari Peskoe, the director of the Harvard Electricity Law Initiative, agreed that such a policy is within the agency’s purview. “The Federal Power Act poses no fundamental obstacle to markets incorporating state carbon pricing,” Konschnik said. Peskoe said pricing carbon is not merely an environmental issue, noting financial regulators have warned about potential costs from failing to put a price on emissions. “No serious conversation about the future direction of the power industry ignores carbon emissions,” he said. “The commission has a duty to encourage the industry’s orderly development. It should not dismiss carbon pricing as someone else’s job.”

That’s especially true if Exelon is looking for help outside the Statehouse, said Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission made two decisions yesterday that affect renewable energy, prompting starkly opposing reactions from wind and solar supporters. In a unanimous vote, FERC rejected a contentious petition that sought to end nationwide net metering, a practice that requires utilities to pay rooftop solar owners for the extra electricity they generate. That sparked praise from renewable groups that also blasted the agency for a separate, final rule updating the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), a 1970s energy law meant to promote the adoption of small-scale, independent wind and solar projects…Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program who has been critical of NERA’s petition, said in general, he doesn’t see the commission picking the issue back up, however. “Although perhaps yes if [Republicans] hold the majority for another five years, which might provide enough time for someone to file a more specific petition/enforcement action,” he wrote in an email. Peskoe said Danly seemed to suggest parties might now bring lawsuits in federal court to challenge net metering. “Perhaps he knows something. His premise is that various courts might draw different conclusions about FERC’s jurisdiction, and that would be a bad result,” he said. “He therefore appears to suggest that FERC ought to weigh in, to ensure a uniform national approach to FERC’s jurisdiction.” He added that a court faced with a net-metering lawsuit could simply ask FERC to weigh in as has happened in the past.

The group behind a contentious petition that could curtail net metering nationally dismissed last week thousands of comments filed in opposition to the plan before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The New England Ratepayers Association also revealed in its FERC filing that one of its members is president of an energy company tied to several electric utilities. “[The] arguments Protestors advance are outside the scope of this proceeding and lack merit, and the Commission should promptly grant NERA’s Petition,” the group’s lawyers wrote in the response. The Massachusetts-based nonprofit caused a stir last April when it filed a petition with FERC urging the agency to place net metering under federal jurisdiction. That could effectively upend the widespread practice, which requires utilities to pay rooftop solar owners for the extra electricity they generate and send to the grid (Energywire, April 20)…Ari Peskoe, a director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program who has been critical of NERA’s petition, tagged Mitchell in a Twitter post last week asking if the firm president was the same person who signed the affidavit. When Mitchell responded, “Yes,” Peskoe asked how long Mitchell has been a member of NERA. “Several years,” Mitchell replied. “Do you pay dues to be a member?” Peskoe asked. Mitchell did not respond to that tweet. “I have confidence that FERC staff will read what’s been filed in the docket, and FERC will make its decision based on NERA’s petition and the actual contents of its opponents’ protests,” Peskoe said in an email to E+E News. FERC has yet to weigh in on the petition.