Ari Peskoe

The Trump administration did not offer comment to the U.S. Supreme Court about a bid by certain coal-producing states to reject the legitimacy of Washington state standing in the way of a coal export terminal, leaving an opportunity for a Biden administration-controlled U.S. Justice Department to give an opinion instead...The justices have not decided whether they will hear the full case; a decision requires the support of at least four justices. In October 2020, the Supreme Court invited the acting solicitor of the U.S. Justice Department to comment on whether the case should be heard. The Trump administration's DOJ had not filed anything as of Jan. 21, the Supreme Court docket shows... The legal arguments could be dividing conservative justices on the court, making it difficult to proceed to oral arguments, according to Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program. Following the lead of former Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has rarely been willing to recognize the legitimacy of the Dormant Commerce Clause, and newly confirmed Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett may feel similarly. "Given that [Amy Coney Barrett] is apparently a Scalia acolyte, the other four conservative justices would have to decide to hear this case for it to move forward," Peskoe said in a Jan. 21 email. "I don't see it happening. My guess — and it's just a guess — is that the Trump DOJ didn't think this case was worth the effort, given the very long odds."

The slim edge Democrats won in the Senate renews hopes for limited legislation to combat climate change, such as measures to fulfill President-elect Joe Biden’s pledge to promote the use of electric vehicles and clean energy. But the ambitious Green New Deal, as well as controversial proposals to phase out fossil fuels and ban fracking, are still on ice...Renewable energy advocates said they expect Democrats in charge of the House and the Senate to collaborate with Republicans on a green-themed infrastructure bill that contains encourages sustainable development, including investments in mass transit and charging stations for electric cars. Republicans and Democrats also could find common ground on efforts to support carbon capture and sequestration technology essential to pare emissions from power plants as well as heavy manufacturing. The Democratic takeover of the Senate also could provide an easier path for Biden’s nominees to federal agencies that control energy and climate policy, including the Federal Electricity Regulatory Commission, where three Republicans are set to hold a majority until midyear. “FERC will become a Democrat-majority body and there won’t have to be any horse trading with the Republicans to make that happen,” said Ari Peskoe, director of Harvard Law School’s Electricity Law Initiative. “McConnell was not shy about holding up Obama’s nominees, so there was precedent for sitting on the nominee forever.”

A pair of U.S. Senate wins by Democrats in Georgia means that current Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will no longer have the ability to unilaterally prevent the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from having a Democrat majority this year. The development means that the federal agency could play a more expansive role in advancing President-elect Joe Biden's energy and climate policy agenda during his first term, especially given that the Democrats' slim control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate may thwart the passage of more progressive legislation. The agency currently has a 3-2 Republican majority, but one of the Republican seats will expire in June...While FERC controls its own agenda, it also has to respond to filings made by regulated parties like utilities and other key players such as environmental organizations, said Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School. "So it could be that whatever agenda FERC might have in mind could be, in part, overtaken by whatever is put before it," Peskoe said in an interview. Peskoe noted that this occurred early in the Trump administration when the Energy Department in September 2017 pursued a proposal to prop up ailing coal- and nuclear-fired generators with subsidies, an effort that ultimately failed. "I'd be surprised if the Biden DOE did something like that, but it just illustrates the fact that things can be out of the control of commissioners sometimes," Peskoe said. Parallel examples in a Biden administration could include a carbon pricing proposal from the New York ISO or a complaint filed by clean energy advocates concerning wholesale capacity market rules, Peskoe said.

Industry observers see the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as a major player in the clean energy transition and believe new leadership that will take the helm at the agency in 2021 could aid with effectuating the climate goals of the president-elect and certain states. Once considered an obscure, sleepy agency, clashes over natural gas infrastructure projects, coal plant retirements and state clean energy policies thrust the agency into the center of climate debates. With authority over power sector operations and planning, its decisions are helping to shape the evolution of the sector and influence the energy transition...Ari Peskoe, director of Harvard Law School's Electricity Law Initiative, said that "regardless of whether Congress passes clean energy legislation, the Democratic-led FERC should choose to wield its authority to support a clean energy agenda." He asserted that FERC had broad discretion to do so given that it operates under flexible legal standards and already has transmission oversight and market regulation authorities. In a paper, he specifically advocated for FERC to ensure that transmission networks support clean energy deployment and that power market rules align with the clean energy transition. As such, Peskoe said FERC would "be an indispensable player in the Biden administration's clean energy agenda" as its decisions would affect the pace and cost of clean energy deployment.

The U.S. energy transition is well underway. Electricity from solar and wind is increasingly competitive with natural gas power, and the grid is hemorrhaging coal plants that no longer make economic sense. But without any real national climate policy managing the decline of fossil fuels, the transition is scattershot, messy, and full of carnage. Power companies announced more than 13 coal plant retirements this year, in many cases moving up previously announced closures and shortening the window of time the communities that live near and work at those plants have to think about what comes next...There’s also no single, swift action the Biden administration could take to require all fossil fuel–burning power plants to shut by 2035. Ari Peskoe, director of Harvard University’s Electricity Law Initiative, told Grist that instead, the government could try to approximate that deadline through environmental and economic regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and states could choose to adopt even stricter rules. Some are already doing so — three coal plants in Colorado may be forced to shut down in 2028, two years earlier than previously planned, to meet the state’s climate targets and an air quality rule that seeks to improve visibility in Rocky Mountain National Park...The other side of the coin is preventing new gas-powered generators from being built. Peskoe said the EPA could put stricter rules on new plants, and he expects to see rule changes in interstate electricity markets that make the economics of building a new plant less favorable. “They can also stop pipeline expansion too, which is obviously related to power plant expansion,” he added.

Electric utilities have a legal obligation to plan for climate change and its impacts under public utility and state tort laws, and could face liability if they fail to do so, according to a new report from the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School...The use of tort law, which covers harm related to civil claims, could provide "another legal mechanism for reforming local electricity distribution," according to Ari Peskoe, director of Harvard University's Electricity Law Initiative. But he said "the best approach" remains using the utility regulatory commissions to ensure utilities are prepared for climate change...Ratemaking and planning processes remain the most effective way to reform how utilities do business, according to Peskoe. "Reform advocates can participate in those processes, but ultimately PUCs make the decisions," he said in an email. "Tort law provides another avenue for advocates, although it’s more reactive." Peskoe said claims made under tort law can be "another tool in the toolbox for advocates to pursue reforms." "I suppose the goal of these tort cases would be to make utilities’ past practices so expensive ... that they are essentially compelled to reform their operations or planning in response," Peskoe said.

Thursday’s meeting of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission started off with expressions of comity between its three commissioners. It ended with another round of dissents from its sole Democrat, who warned of possible legal challenges to FERC decisions approved by its Republican majority over his objections. Questions of political pressure on the avowedly nonpartisan agency have swirled around FERC over the past weeks after the Trump administration demoted Neil Chatterjee from his two-year tenure as FERC chairman to appoint fellow Republican James Danly to the leadership position...Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard University, noted that FERC’s subsequent actions to impose even more problematic restrictions on state-subsidized resources in the capacity market of mid-Atlantic grid operator PJM may strengthen legal challenges to ISO-NE's CASPR construct. “One of the key legal issues in both proceedings is FERC’s authority to address state policies,” he wrote in a Thursday email. “FERC went further in PJM, and perhaps clean energy interests will be able to make more convincing arguments based on those facts.”

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member Neil Chatterjee defended his actions on clean energy and climate after President Donald Trump on Nov. 5 unexpectedly replaced him as chair of the independent agency. Chatterjee said he also sees an outsized role for FERC, and himself, if former Vice President Joe Biden wins the presidency and Republicans maintain control of the U.S. Senate...FERC issued a news release late Nov. 5 announcing that Chatterjee had been replaced as chair by fellow Commissioner James Danly, who in various dissents and statements has conveyed a narrow view of the quasi-judicial regulator's authority. Chatterjee has promised to stay on through the end of his term at the end of June 2021 or potentially longer if the Senate is unable to confirm a replacement before the next U.S. Congress is sworn in. Chatterjee speculated that the decision to hand Danly the gavel may have been related to a draft policy statement issued by FERC last month outlining the commission's legal authority to approve wholesale power market rules that accommodate state-determined carbon pricing. Danly penned a partial dissent to the policy statement, arguing it was issued prematurely...In the meantime, observers should not expect Danly to initiate proactive rulemakings in the same way FERC did for energy storage and distributed energy resources following the 2016 election, said Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School. "Danly has explained that he is not a proactive regulator, so I don't expect him to launch any agenda," Peskoe said in a Nov. 6 email.

The rapid evolution of the power grid will require the attention of one critical agency —  the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And observers say no matter what happens Nov. 3, the agency will have no choice but to address the industry's transition, even if it means backing away from some of its more controversial policies. Over the past four years, the commission has been accused of trampling on state efforts to move away from fossil fuels and toward zero-carbon, renewable resources...The Biden Administration has an ambitious plan to bring the grid to zero-carbon electricity by 2035, an ambitious target that exceeds the goals of utilities' mid-century decarbonization plans, already considered aggressive by some in the industry. Getting that type of plan through Congress will be difficult in itself, dependent, in part, on which party secures the majority in the Senate. "FERC's role could really hinge on whether Congress does enact any clean energy legislation, even if that energy legislation doesn't specifically task FERC with anything," said Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School's Environmental and Energy Law Program. For example, if Congress were to pass any sort of clean energy standard, FERC would be beholden to that law, regardless of who was in charge of the commission. FERC's efforts over the past few years have been centered around "leveling the playing field" for energy resources, much of it said by NGOs and others to be aimed at state clean energy policies and subsidies, which Chatterjee and fellow conservative Republican-appointed commissioners have characterized as "distorting" the markets by giving renewable or zero carbon resources an advantage over fossil fuel generators. But under a federal clean energy standard, "everybody is under the same obligation," said Peskoe. "I don't think FERC could ignore that."

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does have the legal authority to implement a carbon price, legal experts agreed during a Wednesday technical conference on carbon pricing. Under sections 206 and 205 of the Federal Power Act, FERC has the authority to actualize such a policy through the regional transmission operators (RTO) and independent system operators (ISO), six panelists spanning academia and industry law told commissioners. But a slightly murkier question is whether the commission has the power to implement such a tariff unilaterally — an issue Commissioner James Danly was particularly interested in. If FERC were to establish a record, there is no "inherent jurisdictional bar" to prevent the commission from issuing a carbon price without a direct request from grid operators, Ari Peskoe, director of Harvard's Electricity Law Initiative, said. Others said it was possible, but tricky without a legislative mandate. FERC's highly-anticipated carbon pricing conference raised a number of questions about the technical feasibility of implementing a carbon price. For Danly, FERC's newest commissioner, only one question was relevant: Does FERC have legal authority to do this? ... Danly pressed this point further in his line of questioning. "I'm assuming ... from what I've heard that there's nobody on the panel who believes that FERC has the mandate or authority to simply unilaterally impose the universal carbon pricing system," he said. Peskoe countered that he thought the commission did, in fact, have that authority.

Carbon pricing in regional wholesale power markets is a good if not necessary step to combat climate change and ensure reasonable rates for electricity customers. That was the consensus yesterday among 30 energy sector panelists who discussed the pricing mechanism before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In an all-day, long-anticipated virtual conference, an array of academics, grid operators and utility executives discussed FERC's legal authority, various designs for adding a carbon price in regional markets — and potential pitfalls... That could send a signal to states that they can develop carbon pricing programs without fear that FERC would reject those proposals, Dennis said...Experts on the first panel yesterday focused on FERC's legal authority to implement carbon pricing in wholesale markets. Kate Konschnik, the director of climate and energy programs at Duke University, and Ari Peskoe, the director of the Harvard Electricity Law Initiative, agreed that such a policy is within the agency's purview. "The Federal Power Act poses no fundamental obstacle to markets incorporating state carbon pricing," Konschnik said. Peskoe said pricing carbon is not merely an environmental issue, noting financial regulators have warned about potential costs from failing to put a price on emissions. "No serious conversation about the future direction of the power industry ignores carbon emissions," he said. "The commission has a duty to encourage the industry's orderly development. It should not dismiss carbon pricing as someone else's job."

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker dialed up the heat on Exelon Corp. last week with an energy plan that rejected the Chicago company's call for policy changes to prop up its nuclear fleet. Yesterday, Exelon pushed back on Pritzker and Illinois legislators, threatening to close two nuclear plants in the northern half of the state that the company had previously warned were at risk. Besides the loss of an additional 1,500 jobs if the plants close and millions of dollars in local taxes for governments challenged by an economic downturn from COVID-19, the closures would mean the loss of 4,300 megawatts of Illinois' carbon-free energy at a time when the governor has promised to cut carbon emissions (Greenwire, Aug. 27). Nuclear industry supporters say there's no getting around the fact that the closure of the two plants would lead to an increase in carbon emissions, at least in the short run. And no matter their view of Exelon, elected officials in Illinois, including Pritzker, don't want to see the reactors shut down, costing local jobs and tax revenue...That's especially true if Exelon is looking for help outside the Statehouse, said Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program. At the federal level, Democrats in Congress have discussed a federal clean energy standard. But that would be on the table only if the party can take control of the Senate this fall and former Vice President Joe Biden defeats President Trump (Climatewire, Aug. 26). Even then, passing and implementing such a bill wouldn't be quick or easy. Regulators led by a new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chairman under a Biden administration could also seek changes to PJM market rules (Energywire, Aug. 24). Such a process can take years to work through. "There's a lot of things the state or Congress or FERC could do, but those would take time," Peskoe said. Even if Biden and the Democrats win big in November, "it's not going to happen on Jan. 21."

Changes to the way a 40-year-old federal law is implemented could significantly benefit vertically-integrated utilities in non-competitive markets, while harming small-scale solar developers, stakeholders told Utility Dive...Critics say states' ability to set prices paid to small solar at varying levels with no guaranteed long-term contract could allow some to set policies that harm independent power producers. "This ultimately harms renewable energy generators because they lose [these] long-term fixed price contracts and other benefits they had under the old rules," Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program, told Utility Dive... "The utilities that benefit most from weakening PURPA are these vertically integrated utilities that are outside of the [regional transmission organization (RTO)] markets and so, therefore, already have the most control over power supply in their regions," said Peskoe. "One reason why Congress enacted PURPA 40 plus years ago ... was to neutralize some of the power that these vertically integrated utilities have, to require them to buy energy from these qualifying facilities because otherwise they would not have bought energy from their competitors." But while Peskoe sees potential problems with FERC's updated PURPA regulations, some state regulators say the new rules will bring clarity and certainty to states in how they implement PURPA moving forward...The larger issue surrounding the risk to renewable energy is financeability, which remains a a key concern left unaddressed by FERC, according to Peskoe. Although state regulators do have "tools in their toolbox" to promote competition, federal rules no longer require utilities to offer long-term contracts with fixed energy prices, Peskoe said.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission made two decisions yesterday that affect renewable energy, prompting starkly opposing reactions from wind and solar supporters. In a unanimous vote, FERC rejected a contentious petition that sought to end nationwide net metering, a practice that requires utilities to pay rooftop solar owners for the extra electricity they generate...The commission rejected the petition by the New England Ratepayers Association (NERA) on procedural grounds, saying the request didn't identify a specific controversy or harm for the agency to address. Republican Commissioners James Danly and Bernard McNamee offered comments about the petition, raising questions about whether the commission might have an appetite to examine federal jurisdiction over net metering in the future...Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School's Environmental and Energy Law Program who has been critical of NERA's petition, said in general, he doesn't see the commission picking the issue back up, however. "Although perhaps yes if [Republicans] hold the majority for another five years, which might provide enough time for someone to file a more specific petition/enforcement action," he wrote in an email. Peskoe said Danly seemed to suggest parties might now bring lawsuits in federal court to challenge net metering. "Perhaps he knows something. His premise is that various courts might draw different conclusions about FERC's jurisdiction, and that would be a bad result," he said. "He therefore appears to suggest that FERC ought to weigh in, to ensure a uniform national approach to FERC's jurisdiction." He added that a court faced with a net-metering lawsuit could simply ask FERC to weigh in as has happened in the past.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission made two decisions yesterday that affect renewable energy, prompting starkly opposing reactions from wind and solar supporters. In a unanimous vote, FERC rejected a contentious petition that sought to end nationwide net metering, a practice that requires utilities to pay rooftop solar owners for the extra electricity they generate. That sparked praise from renewable groups that also blasted the agency for a separate, final rule updating the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), a 1970s energy law meant to promote the adoption of small-scale, independent wind and solar projects...Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School's Environmental and Energy Law Program who has been critical of NERA's petition, said in general, he doesn't see the commission picking the issue back up, however. "Although perhaps yes if [Republicans] hold the majority for another five years, which might provide enough time for someone to file a more specific petition/enforcement action," he wrote in an email. Peskoe said Danly seemed to suggest parties might now bring lawsuits in federal court to challenge net metering. "Perhaps he knows something. His premise is that various courts might draw different conclusions about FERC's jurisdiction, and that would be a bad result," he said. "He therefore appears to suggest that FERC ought to weigh in, to ensure a uniform national approach to FERC's jurisdiction." He added that a court faced with a net-metering lawsuit could simply ask FERC to weigh in as has happened in the past.

The group behind a contentious petition that could curtail net metering nationally dismissed last week thousands of comments filed in opposition to the plan before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The New England Ratepayers Association also revealed in its FERC filing that one of its members is president of an energy company tied to several electric utilities. "[The] arguments Protestors advance are outside the scope of this proceeding and lack merit, and the Commission should promptly grant NERA's Petition," the group's lawyers wrote in the response. The Massachusetts-based nonprofit caused a stir last April when it filed a petition with FERC urging the agency to place net metering under federal jurisdiction. That could effectively upend the widespread practice, which requires utilities to pay rooftop solar owners for the extra electricity they generate and send to the grid (Energywire, April 20)...Ari Peskoe, a director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program who has been critical of NERA's petition, tagged Mitchell in a Twitter post last week asking if the firm president was the same person who signed the affidavit. When Mitchell responded, "Yes," Peskoe asked how long Mitchell has been a member of NERA. "Several years," Mitchell replied. "Do you pay dues to be a member?" Peskoe asked. Mitchell did not respond to that tweet. "I have confidence that FERC staff will read what's been filed in the docket, and FERC will make its decision based on NERA's petition and the actual contents of its opponents' protests," Peskoe said in an email to E+E News. FERC has yet to weigh in on the petition.

Lawyers representing the New England Ratepayers Association (NERA) on Tuesday filed their response to the almost 50,000 comments opposing the group's petition to federal regulators to effectively upend net metering policies nationwide. In their response, the group defended itself against assertions that utility or other industry interests were behind the petition. "NERA is a ratepayer advocacy organization," the attorneys wrote. "It filed its Petition because ratepayers are being required to pay as much as 20 cents per kilowatt-hour for energy that can be purchased on the market for three cents." They argue broadly that opponents give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission no legitimate grounds for dismissal or denial of the petition...NERA has generated significant attention in the power sector with its April petition asking FERC to declare "exclusive" jurisdiction over behind-the-meter energy generation. Bipartisan groups of state legislators, regulators, attorneys general, governors and other officials filed almost 100 comments in opposition. Advocacy groups, legal experts and academics filed over 500 comments, while almost 50,000 individuals also commented on the filing, all in opposition to the proposal...Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program, who also filed comments opposing the NERA petition, said the group's reply "badly mischaracterizes its opponents' arguments and therefore is not informative." "I have faith that the attorneys at FERC will review NERA's initial petition and the numerous responses in opposition, and FERC will issue an order based on what's actually in the filings," he told Utility Dive in an email.

A petition in front of federal regulators to effectively overturn net metering policies nationwide faced overwhelming bipartisan opposition on Monday from state regulators, members of Congress, public power groups and others. Though several utilities filed to intervene on the petition, including Pacific Gas and Electric, Xcel Energy and Duke Energy, none filed comments by the June 15 deadline, so it remains unclear where utilities fall on the issue. Investor-owned utility group Edison Electric Institute (EEI) has said it finds net metering to be a "regressive and poor public policy tool," but the group ultimately decided against filing comments during this initial period. Opponents of the petition decried the move as an affront to states' rights and legally questionable on a number of grounds. Others were also critical of the group that introduced the petition and urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to require it to disclose its backers. State regulators, the renewable energy industry, environmentalists, members of Congress and others have been openly opposed to the New England Ratepayers Association (NERA) petition from the start, but observers have been less sure of where utility interests would fall, particularly after EEI declined to file comment. "The wild card here will be the number of utilities that have already declared their intent to file something here, and I don't know which side of this they're going to come down on," Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School, told reporters last week.

A controversial petition urging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to assert exclusive jurisdiction over state programs that pay homeowners for solar power they generate and put on the grid has spurred the latest tug of war between state and federal electricity authority. A group known as the New England Ratepayers Association wants FERC to find that "behind the meter" electricity sales, currently treated as retail electricity sales and priced by state utility regulators in programs known as net metering, are wholesale power sales subject to FERC's exclusive jurisdiction. The petition also wants FERC to declare any state retail net metering laws unlawful...A declaratory order from FERC doesn't carry any force of law, so states wouldn't be forced to scuttle their net metering programs if the agency grants NERA's petition. But experts say it would give opponents of net metering a powerful piece of ammunition to launch legal challenges to net metering programs at both the state and federal level. "It would trigger a wave of proceedings at the state public utility commission level to try and change the rules," said Ari Peskoe, who directs the electricity law initiative at Harvard Law School's Environmental and Energy Law Program. "It's possible that it would trigger a wave of litigation in federal court with entities saying net metering is illegal under federal law and bringing FERC's order as a legal opinion supporting the lawsuit." Even if a state voluntarily ends its net metering program and starts pricing the sales according to PURPA, the flood of new PURPA facilities would only further drag out what's already a lengthy, highly contentious process at the state level to set rates, experts say. It could also see FERC increasingly fielding complaints that states aren't implementing PURPA properly. "FERC could have a real administrative burden on its hands with a surge in complaints," Peskoe said.

The solar industry, struggling amid the coronavirus pandemic, faces another threat at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: a petition that would effectively end a key incentive for installing rooftop solar called net metering. The New England Ratepayers Association on April 14 asked FERC to declare that the agency has jurisdiction over net metering, which requires utilities to buy excess power from customers who generate electricity with their own energy resources, such as rooftop solar panels...The question at the heart of NERA’s petition is whether sales from rooftop solar should be deemed retail sales, which are regulated by states, or wholesale sales, which fall under FERC’s jurisdiction. In decisions issued in 2001 and 2009, FERC has said that net metered electricity sales fall under state authority. NERA, however, contends FERC’s analysis is flawed. If FERC asserts authority over net metered sales, the practice would be effectively killed, according to Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School. The solar industry finds NERA’s petition alarming...Harvard Law School’s Peskoe contends that NERA’s petition is based on flawed legal analysis. Also, unlike typical petitions at FERC, NERA failed to say how the group is harmed by net metering or describe exactly what the group is. FERC could dismiss the petition on those grounds alone, Peskoe said.

The Edison Electric Institute has battled against solar net-metering policies for years. But on Thursday the primary industry group for U.S. investor-owned utilities confirmed that it is staying neutral on a controversial petition asking federal regulators to declare net metering illegal. On June 15, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will close comments on a petition filed by the New Hampshire-based New England Ratepayers Association asking FERC to adopt a legal argument that would undermine net-metering programs in more than 41 states...If FERC approves the petition, it “could create chaos at the state level,” Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard University, said in a Thursday interview. An approval could open up state programs to challenges from utilities in regulatory proceedings and independent lawsuits in federal court, Peskoe said...The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners has not yet filed comments in the FERC proceeding, but Mississippi PSC Commissioner and NARUC President Brandon Presley objected to FERC’s June 15 deadline in a May 5 statement, saying it would “divert precious time, attention and resources to fighting NERA's request in a tightly compressed schedule.”  FERC declined NARUC’s request to extend the comment deadline, but it has no hard deadline to make a decision on NERA’s petition, Harvard’s Peskoe said. “We’ll just be waiting to see what happens.”