Public Utility of Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA)

The Congress en take oned Public Utility of Regulatory Policies make for (PURPA) of 1978 to answer the energy crisis that U. S. was facing (470 U. S. 1075). Section 210 of Title II provides that the operation sh altogether promote for the development of alternative energy resources by stopping the usage of electric utilities in purchasing power from non-traditional facilities (470 U. S. 1075).In addition, the act also trustworthy the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC to implement the act by promulgating rules necessary to encourage cogeneration and small power production (470 U.S. 1075). The puzzle out of FERC includes also the setting of mark of electricity (470 U. S. 1075).Moreover, the act required the judge to be just and reasonable and non-discriminatory and shall not exceed the incremental personify of the electric utility of alternative electric energy (470 U. S. 1075). Pursuant to tell act, FERC adopted the maximum rate which is the incremental of full- av oided hail and required all utilities to purchase from qualifying facilities (470 U. S. 1075). The state of bleak York has set minimum rate of six per kW hour.The appellant argued that it cannot pay such amount because its avoided represent fell below that amount (470 U. S. 1075). PROCEDURE The Appellate Division of the brisk York Supreme woo granted the petition because the rate of six cents per kilowatt hour exceeded the federally mandated avoided cost rate (470 U. S. 1075). The respondent here appealed to Court of Appeals and it reversed the decision of the lower dally on the ground that the federal law and the statute are complementary and the statute is consistent with the finding of the act.ISSUE Can the state require utilities to pay more than the full avoided cost rate for their mandatory purchases? HOLDING Yes, the state can. REASONING There is no question as to the rate implemented by the state because the performance authorizes it. The state can freely enact regu lations or laws providing arrange as long as it achieves the purpose of the Act. Furthermore, there is no substantial outcome than can be debated and so the case is dismissed. DISSENTING The Act and the states regulations should be clearly interpreted.The decision of CA is contradictory to the case in Kansas where the court held that the state regulatory commission could not set rates for purchases from cogenerations that were high than the avoided cost (470 U. S. 1075). Moreover, the state may have jurisdiction to set the rates to a lower place PURPA but the extent of their authority shall be settled (470 U. S. 1075). In addition, Justice White found that there are various cases akin to this and the states also have different approaches as to the setting of the rate under the PURPA (470 U.S. 1075). These cases may occur again in the future and in order to avoid it, the issue shall be resolved. Furthermore, the Justice found the issue as important and open for debate (470 U. S . 1075) Works Cited Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of New York, et al (470 U. S. 1075). 2003. The New York Times. 23 May 2008 . How To Brief A Case. 2006. 4Lawschool. com. 23 May 2008