American Paper Institute, Inc v. American Electric Power Service Corporation Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. American Electric Power Service Corporation
Decision Date | 16 May 1983 |
Docket Number | 82-226,Nos. 82-34,s. 82-34 |
Citation | 103 S.Ct. 1921,76 L.Ed.2d 22,461 U.S. 402 |
Parties | AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE, INC., Petitioner, v. AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORPORATION et al. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORPORATION et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) was designed to encourage the development of cogeneration facilities and small power production facilities and to reduce the demand for fossil fuels. Section 210(a) directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to prescribe rules requiring electric utilities to deal with qualifying cogeneration and small power facilities. With respect to utilities' purchases of electricity from such facilities, § 210(b) provides that rates set by FERC "shall be just and reasonable to the electric consumers of the electric utility and in the public interest," shall not discriminate against qualified cogeneration and small power facilities, and shall not exceed "the incremental cost to the electric utility of alternative electric energy." Following rulemaking proceedings, FERC promulgated a rule requiring utilities to purchase electric energy from a qualifying facility at a rate equal to the utility's "full avoided cost," i.e., the cost to the utility which, but for the purchase from the qualifying facility, would be incurred by the utility in generating the electricity itself or purchasing the electricity from another source. FERC also promulgated a rule requiring utilities to make such physical interconnections with cogenerators and small power producers as are necessary to effect purchases or sales of electricity authorized by PURPA. Upon review, the Court of Appeals vacated both rules, holding that FERC had not adequately explained its adoption of the full-avoided-cost rule, and that it exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the interconnection rule, in view of § 210(e)(3) of PURPA, which provides that "[n]o qualifying small production facility or qualifying cogeneration facility may be exempted under this subsection from" specified provisions of the Federal Power Act (FPA) which require FERC to afford an opportunity for a hearing before ordering an interconnection.
Held:
1. FERC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in promulgating the full-avoided-cost rule, which is the maximum rate permissible under § 210(b). Such rule plainly satisfies the requirement of § 210(b) that the rate not discriminate against qualifying cogeneration and small power production facilities. FERC also adequately explained why the rate is "just and reasonable to the electric consumers of the electric utility and in the public interest." Both the statutory language and the legislative history confirm that Congress did not intend to impose traditional ratemaking concepts on sales by qualifying facilities to utilities. And although FERC recognized that the rule would not directly provide any rate savings to consumers, it reasonably deemed it more important at this time that the rule would provide a significant incentive for the development of cogeneration and small power production, and that ratepayers and the nation as a whole will benefit from the decreased reliance on scarce fossil fuels and the more efficient use of energy. Pp. 412-418.
2. Nor did FERC exceed its authority in promulgating the interconnection rule. The authority granted by § 210(a) to promulgate such rules as are necessary to require utilities to deal with qualifying facilities plainly encompasses the power to promulgate rules requiring utilities to make physical connections with such facilities, and FERC reasonably interpreted § 210(e)(3) as forbidding FERC to exempt qualifying facilities from being the "target" of interconnection applications by other facilities under the FPA, but not as forbidding FERC to grant qualifying facilities the right to obtain interconnections under PURPA without applying for an order under the FPA. Such interpretation is supported by the purposes of PURPA and the statutory scheme created by both Acts. Pp. 418-423.
219 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 675 F.2d 1226, reversed and remanded.
Mr. Paul M. Bator, Cambridge, Mass., for petitioners.
Edward Berlin, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
This case concerns two rules promulgated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to § 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3 (Supp. V). The first rule requires electric utilities to purchase electric energy from cogenerators and small power producers at a rate equal to the purchasing utility's full avoided cost, i.e., the cost the utility would have incurred had it generated the electricity itself or purchased the electricity from another source. The second rule requires utilities to make such interconnections with cogenerators and small power producers as are necessary to effect purchases or sales of electricity authorized by PURPA. The Court of Appeals held that FERC had not adequately explained its adoption of the full-avoided-cost rule, and that it exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the interconnection rule. 675 F.2d 1221 (CADC 1982). We reverse.
(2) shall not discriminate against qualifying cogenerators or qualifying small power producers.
No such rule prescribed under subsection (a) of this section shall provide for a rate which exceeds the incremental cost to the electric utility of alternative electric energy." PURPA § 210(b), 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3(b) (Supp. V).
Following rulemaking proceedings, FERC promulgated regulations governing transactions between utilities and those cogeneration and small power production facilities, designated as "qualifying facilities," 18 CFR 292.201-292.207 that may invoke the provisions of PURPA to sell electricity to and purchase electricity from utilities.
The first regulation at issue in this case, 18 CFR 292.304(b)(2) (1982), requires a utility to purchase electricity from a qualifying facility at a rate equal to the utility's full avoided cost. The utility's full avoided cost is "the cost to the electric utility of the electric energy which, but for the purchase from such cogenerator or small power producer, such utility would generate or purchase from another source." PURPA § 210(d), 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3(d) (Supp. V). See 18 CFR 292.101(b)(6) (1982) ( ). In its order accompanying the promulgation of this rule, FERC explained its decision to set the rate at full avoided cost rather than at a level that would result in direct rate savings for utility customers by permitting a utility to obtain energy at a cost less than the cost to the utility of producing the energy itself or purchasing it from an alternative source. 45 Fed.Reg. 12214 (Feb. 15, 1980). The Commission emphasized the need to provide incentives for the development of cogeneration and small power production:
The Commission noted that "ratepayers and the nation as a whole will benefit from the decreased reliance on scarce fossil fuels, such as oil and gas, and the more efficient use of energy." Ibid.
FERC rejected proposals that it set the rate for the purchase of electricity from qualifying facilities at a fixed percentage of the purchasing utility's full avoided cost:
The second regulation at issue here, 18 CFR 292.303 (1982), provides that electric utilities shall purchase electricity made available by qualifying facilities, sell electricity to qualifying facilities upon request, and, most important for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Empresa Cubana Exportadora v. Dept. of Treasury
...have reached had the question arisen in the first instance in judicial proceedings." Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402, 422, 103 S.Ct. 1921, 76 L.Ed.2d 22 (1983). The Court is also not entitled to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Citizens to P......
-
Cape Cod Hosp. v. Sebelius
...... to a provider hospital for a given service is dependant on the hospital's "average ... for the upcoming fiscal year in the Federal Register. The Secretary's final changes are ...Paper Inst., Inc. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 ... the agency relies in its rulemaking." American Radio Relay League v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 236 ...v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 988 F.2d 146, 150-51 (D.C.Cir.1993) ......
-
National Treasury Employees Union v. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Bd., 82-1206
...699 F.2d 1280, 1284-85 (D.C.Cir.1983) (citing and quoting authorities). See also American Paper Institute v. American Electric Power Service Corp., 461 U.S. 402, 103 S.Ct. 1921, 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 22 (1983). OPM and MSPB's findings here are owed the deference represented by that standard of r......
-
Greensboro Lumber Co. v. Georgia Power Co.
...to throughout this opinion as qualifying facilities, such as Greensboro.36See American Paper Institute, Inc. v. American Electric Power Service Corp., 461 U.S. 402, 103 S.Ct. 1921, 76 L.Ed.2d 22 (1983). Prior to PURPA, Congress felt that two problems impeded the development of non-tradition......
-
Understanding Today's PURPA Before Negotiating a Power Purchase Agreement
...Corp. v. FERC, 675 F.2d 1226 (D.C. Cir. 1982), rev'd in part on other grounds sub nom. Am. Paper Inst. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402 [7] City of Ketchikan, Alaska, 94 FERC ¶ 61,293, at p. 62,062 (2001) ("[A]n avoided cost rate need not include capacity unless the QF purchase ......
-
The Ideology of Supreme Court Opinions and Citations
...Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983) Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. Am. Electric Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402 (1983) Planned Parenthood Ass’n of Kan. City, Mo. v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476 (1983) Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) Brown v. Thomson, 4......
-
The Ideology of Supreme Court Opinions and Citations
...Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983) Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. Am. Electric Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402 (1983) Planned Parenthood Ass’n of Kan. City, Mo. v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476 (1983) Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) Brown v. Thomson, 4......
-
Jealous guardians in the psychedelic kingdom: federal regulation of electricity contracts in bankruptcy.
...Cir. 1999) (quoting N. States Power Co., 30 F.3d 177, 180 (D.C. Cir. 1994)); see also Am. Paper Inst. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402, 422 (1983) (describing FERC employees, with telling admiration, as "'the men charged with the responsibility of setting [the FPA's] machinery i......
-
The Regulatory Future of Clean, Reliable Energy: Increasing Distributed Generation
...of rate schedules already in effect. 34. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 2601 to 2645. 35. See Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402, 406 (1983). 36. EPAct, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594. 37. Standardization of Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Ord......