NARUC president calls for judicial transparency following energy marketing ruling
In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing case on Tuesday, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) President Travis Kavulla called for transparency on the court’s decision-making processes.
Kavulla critiqued the court for making a “narrow” ruling without being open about how it made its decision. He said that by following the logic of the Supreme Court, the turnout could have been different. The state of Maryland could have obtained its goal of increased generating capacity so long as the compensation for such increases would not rely on the wholesale market’s clearing price for capacity.
Kavulla said that the court’s holding that the case for new power facilities and their services and impacts on the economies of the area is something often governed by the states, not by the federal court. As a result, Kavulla asked for more transparency regarding decision-making processes and the narrow laws on which decisions are made.
“This narrow ruling, however, inevitably will result in further litigation of these issues by leaving many open questions,” Kavulla said. “Someday soon, consumers, utilities, power generators, and regulators alike will need greater certainty about what is and is not permissible on the part of federal and state regulators. But today is not that day.”
The court did rule that the state of Maryland may be proactive in increasing its energy capacity, but must do so without overstepping federal rule.
