+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 48
Latest: watcher
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16867
Total Topics: 271
Most Online Today: 1115
Most Online Ever: 1155
(April 20, 2021, 12:50:06 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 723
Total: 723

Author Topic: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth  (Read 46167 times)

0 Members and 36 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
« Reply #165 on: March 14, 2016, 03:41:08 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Renewable Energy interests win a round at the court of appeals. 
Tenth Circuit Rejects Challenge to Colorado's Renewable Energy Standards; Supreme Court Denies Cert   

 On December 7, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in  Energy & Environment Legal Institute v. Epel  , No. 15-471, which sought to overturn the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit's July 13, 2015 opinion, 793 F.3d 1160, affirming a federal district court's judgment upholding Colorado's Renewable Energy Standards. 
 
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of a Colorado statute and related regulations (the "Renewable Energy Standards") requiring "qualified retail utilities" to "generate, or cause to be generated," electricity from Colorado-approved renewable sources in specified minimum amounts. Specifically, the Renewable Energy Standards require 30 percent of electricity supplied by investor-owned utilities to be obtained from Colorado-approved renewable sources by 2020.
 
Petitioners argued that the Renewable Energy Standards eliminate competition  with other states by requiring a specified amount of electricity to come from renewable sources and then limiting what qualifies as a renewable source.

One example of in-state favoritism cited by petitioners is that the Renewable Energy Standards do not consider ocean thermal and ocean wave electricity generation—methods that cannot themselves be generated within Colorado's borders—as approved renewable sources, even though other states, such as California, do.

Petitioners argued the Renewable Energy Standards thereby favor Colorado over other states by approving methods of electricity generation that can be generated within Colorado.

 
While petitioners argued in their petition for writ of certiorari that Colorado's Renewable Energy Standards violate the Commerce Clause, Full Faith and Credit Clause, and Due Process Clauses,

the only issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether the Renewable Energy Standards violate the dormant Commerce Clause under the line of cases stemming from  Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 (1935). The Tenth Circuit found that there were only three cases total in this line:  Baldwin;  Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 476 U.S. 573 (1986); and  Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc., 491 U.S. 324 (1989). The court explained that the common thread among these cases is that they involved "(1) a price control or price affirmation regulation, (2) linking in-state prices to those charged elsewhere, with (3) the effect of raising costs for out-of-state consumers or rival businesses." The Tenth Circuit held that Colorado's statute did not fall within the bounds of these cases because "it isn't a price control statute, it doesn't link prices paid in Colorado with those paid out of state, and it does not discriminate against out-of-staters."

It further noted that the Renewable Energy Standards equally hurt  ;D in-state and out-of-state fossil fuel producers      that provide energy to the grid, while equally helping in-state and out-of-state renewable energy producers.
 

Although the Tenth Circuit upheld Colorado's Renewable Energy Standards under the  Baldwin  line of cases—a decision that will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court—it left the door open to a challenge under other lines of dormant Commerce Clause cases, namely  Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970) ("allowing judges to strike down state laws burdening interstate commerce when they find insufficient offsetting local benefits"), and  City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978) ("appl[ying] to state laws that 'clearly discriminate' against out-of-staters").

— Jane B. Story (+1.412.394.7294, jbstory@jonesday.com)

http://thewritestuff.jonesday.com/cv/e6851a62b558a19678a219dc8f556d6884d2f252/p%3D5380653?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original

Agelbert NOTE: The "door" left open was CLOSED when Scalia, front man for the fossil fuel fascists, went to his "reward" with "Lord" Lucifer. 
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

 

+-Recent Topics

Future Earth by AGelbert
March 30, 2022, 12:39:42 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
March 29, 2022, 08:20:56 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
March 28, 2022, 01:12:42 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
March 27, 2022, 02:27:28 pm

Heat Pumps by AGelbert
March 26, 2022, 03:54:43 pm

Defending Wildlife by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 02:04:23 pm

The Koch Brothers Exposed! by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 01:26:11 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 12:46:08 pm

Books and Audio Books that may interest you 🧐 by AGelbert
March 24, 2022, 04:28:56 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
March 23, 2022, 12:14:36 pm