• Inside The Supreme Court Case That Could Change How America Gets Its Power

    A pending Supreme Court case will determine if grid operators can “socialize electricity” by forcing energy companies to pay middlemen for electricity theoretically saved by consumers during times of peak demand. In essence, the policy, called “demand-side management” would artificially make green energy much more financially lucrative.

    William Yeatman, a Senior Fellow specializing in energy markets at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation via email:

    Under the Obama administration, FERC has been pursuing policies to encourage demand-side management (DSM). DSM is a wholly contrived business based on the silly notion that it is more efficient for government to try to control demand by paying consumers not to use energy than it is for the market to control demand through a responsive price signal. If the agency wins, and federal authority is thus expanded, then it is likely that the Environmental Protection Agency would try to coopt this new federal authority by forcing states to implement DSM policy in the name of mitigating climate change.

    DSM is the modification and adjustment of consumer demand through incentives, generally financial.

    As a glowing review of the practice in The Washington Post explains, the price of power swings wildly depending on when the power is being used. DSM assigns a financial value to not using electricity at peak times. This encourages people and companies who can reduce their electricity consumption to make reductions in the amount of power they’re using, which puts less strain on the power grid while artificially making the amount of wind and solar power used appear to be higher.

    Normally, the timing and magnitude of energy demand does not coincide with the limited availability and intermittent nature. (Wind power is only available when the wind is blowing and solar power is only available during certain times of the day.) Regulators then recoup those payments through increases in consumers’ rates, earning the companies which serve as the middleman billions of dollars.

    “The way FERC approached the demand response question opens the door for companies to get paid for selling electricity they never bought. By not accounting for that huge flaw, FERC’s compensation scheme overpays participants and is a handout to demand response companies. That is why FERC’s plan was demolished point-by-point in an amicus brief by a group of academic economists and rejected by the Court of Appeals,” economist Travis Fisher of the Institute for Energy Research told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

    Economists generally caution against DSM because it “creates a counterproductive demand response mechanism that produces economically undesirable behavior and wasteful outcomes that will injure consumers and society in the long run,” as an amicus curiae brief filed against FERC by leading Harvard economists states. Studies have shown that demand-side management generally results in higher electricity costs for consumers, which disproportionately harms the poor.

    Follow Andrew on Twitter

    Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected]

    Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected]

    Powered by WPeMatico


    Surge Wire

    Breaking news and analysis from around the globe courtesy of Daily Surge.

    Trending Now on Daily Surge

    Send this to a friend