The D.C. Circuit issued two decisions last week. Both offer early examples of what administrative deference and respect looks like now that courts no longer defer to agency interpretations of statutes under Chevron.
In Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. FERC, the Court once again considered PG&E’s obligations to distribute (“wheel”) its competitor’s energy to its competitor’s customers. The Federal Power Act generally prohibits FERC from requiring utilities to transmit electricity directly to another utility’s “ultimate consumer,” but it grandfathers in consumers to whom the utility “was providing electric service . . . on October 24, 1992.” FERC interpreted the provision to grandfather in not only to actual consumers to whom the utility delivered energy in 1992, but also to other consumers in the same class as those existing customers. FERC’s interpretation requires PG&E to distribute energy more broadly than PG&E believes the statute permits.
No comments:
Post a Comment