Podcasts about federal power act

Podcast: WE'RE IN! (LS 32 · TOP 5% what is this?)Episode: Mara Winn on protecting America's critical infrastructure from cyberthreatsPub date: 2024-05-01A first-of-its-kind 2016 cyberattack on Ukraine's power grid was a wake-up call for countries around the world to shore up protection of vulnerable energy resources. Mara Winn, Deputy Director for Preparedness, Policy, and Risk Analysis at the Department of Energy's Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER), is in charge of acting on just that. From securing electric vehicles to safeguarding electric substations, Mara and her team help to ensure the resilience of the energy sector against cyber, physical and climate-based disruptions.Mara takes a holistic approach to risk management, considering both physical and cyber threats. In the latest episode of WE'RE IN!, she cautions against focusing too much on the "flashy object of the day" and describes why she imbues diversity in risk management for the best outcomes.Listen to hear more about: Why early implementation of security measures in product development is necessary for distributed energy resources like solar, wind and battery technologiesHow to educate investors, entrepreneurs and designers about understanding the full risk picture in business decisionsThe role of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Federal Power Act in defining federal and state responsibilities in the energy systemThe podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Synack, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

Podcast: WE'RE IN! (LS 32 · TOP 5% what is this?)Episode: Mara Winn on protecting America's critical infrastructure from cyberthreatsPub date: 2024-05-01A first-of-its-kind 2016 cyberattack on Ukraine's power grid was a wake-up call for countries around the world to shore up protection of vulnerable energy resources. Mara Winn, Deputy Director for Preparedness, Policy, and Risk Analysis at the Department of Energy's Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESAR), is in charge of acting on just that. From securing electric vehicles to safeguarding electric substations, Mara and her team help to ensure the resilience of the energy sector against cyber, physical and climate-based disruptions.Mara takes a holistic approach to risk management, considering both physical and cyber threats. In the latest episode of WE'RE IN!, she cautions against focusing too much on the "flashy object of the day" and describes why she imbues diversity in risk management for the best outcomes.Listen to hear more about: Why early implementation of security measures in product development is necessary for distributed energy resources like solar, wind and battery technologies How to educate investors, entrepreneurs and designers about understanding the full risk picture in business decisionsThe role of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Federal Power Act in defining federal and state responsibilities in the energy systemThe podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Synack, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

Energy lawyer and law school professor William Massey, at 10 years the longest-serving commissioner ever at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, discusses the vast body of legal precedent finding FERC has expansive authority under the Federal Power Act and Natural Gas Act, and reviews pending cases before the Supreme Court that may test whether this expansive view of FERC's authority will continue under the court's new Major Questions Doctrine."The courts have said FERC's authority is at its zenith when it comes to remedying undue discrimination. And FERC has remembered that and bases many of its policy choices on finding undue discrimination in either natural gas or electricity markets," Massey says. "We'll have to wait and see whether this Major Questions Doctrine, as it plays out over the next few years, whether it limits FERC's authority in certain ways."Massey also speaks to FERC's early days restructuring natural gas and electricity markets in the 1990s, the vast economic benefits that consumers have accrued as a result, and suggests that opening up the electricity sector to greater competitive forces will help policy makers bring about the clean-energy transition in response to the climate change threat at least cost to consumers.Support the show

Grandpa talks About features of Patriot Supply Generator-SEE MY BLOG The Birth of the U.S. Power Grid The U.S. power grid is a vast and complex network of electricity transmission lines connecting power plants to homes and businesses across the country. Its origins can be traced back to the late 19th century, when Thomas Edison invented the first practical electric light bulb in 1879. Early Developments Edison's invention sparked a revolution in electricity, and soon power plants were being built in cities across the United States. However, these early power plants were small and isolated, serving only local customers. In 1882, Edison built the world's first commercial power plant in New York City. The Pearl Street Station used direct current (DC) electricity, which could only be transmitted over short distances. The Rise of Alternating Current (AC) In the late 1880s, Nikola Tesla developed a system of alternating current (AC) electricity. AC could be transmitted over long distances with less loss of power than DC. This made it possible to build larger power plants and connect them to more customers. In 1896, the first long-distance AC transmission line was built between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, New York. This was a major breakthrough that paved the way for the development of a national power grid. The Formation of the Interconnected Power Grid In the early 20th century, electric utilities began to interconnect their power grids. This allowed them to share power with each other, which improved reliability and efficiency. By the 1920s, the U.S. power grid was largely interconnected, although it was still divided into several regional grids. The Federal Role in Power Grid Regulation The federal government began to play a role in regulating the power industry in the 1930s. The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 was passed to prevent large holding companies from controlling too much of the power industry. The Federal Power Act of 1935 gave the Federal Power Commission (FPC) authority over interstate transmission of electricity. The FPC was later renamed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The Modern Power Grid Today, the U.S. power grid is a highly interconnected system that provides electricity to over 300 million people. The grid is operated by a complex system of control centers and communication networks. Challenges Facing the Power Grid The U.S. power grid is facing a number of challenges, including: An aging infrastructure: Cybersecurity threats:  Extreme weather events:  The Integration of Renewable Energy Sources:  Efforts to Modernize the Power Grid Investing in new infrastructure:  Improving cybersecurity: . Developing new technologies:  The Future of the U.S. Power Grid 2nd part of todays episode: Example of the story of Simonides of Ceos Simonides of Ceos was a Greek lyric poet who lived in the 5th century BC. He was known for his epigrams, short poems that were often inscribed on tombs and monuments. One of his most famous epigrams is the following: The Dead Tell No Tales They say the dead tell no tales, But Simonides of Ceos knows better. For he has seen the ghosts of those who have passed, And he has heard their stories. Scrooge, a 21st-century man and billionaire benevolent businessman, can learn from Simonides' story. He can use the power of storytelling to connect with his customers and build a thriving business. He can also use storytelling to promote his philanthropic initiatives and make a difference in the world. #SimonidesOfCeos #StorytellingBusiness #Mnemonics #MagneticMemoryMethod #MrMagoo #MrScrooge #Healthcare #FuneralHome --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bhsales/message

Rich Glick, in his first wide-ranging interview since denied a second term at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, discusses the need for building out the transmission grid and for reforms to wholesale power markets to better accommodate the evolving resource mix toward more renewable, intermittent resources. Competitive wholesale power market reforms also are needed to address increasing climate-induced stresses on reliability, the former FERC chairman said."I think that some of the markets around the country, the markets operated by the RTOs and ISOs around the country, certainly need to be reformed in a way to address the change in the resource mix that we are seeing, the different challenges that we see associated with those changes, and just, again, extreme weather," Glick said. Glick appeared to indicate surprise that FERC's proposed "relatively minor change" to federal right of first refusal, or ROFR, provisions in a closely watched transmission rulemaking engendered such opposition. "There was a lot of attention paid to that provision. But I think it underscored in many ways – hid the bigger problem that I think Order 1000 left, which is guiding or directing utilities towards (building) the wrong types of transmission in order to avoid the competitive bidding process." However his former colleagues at FERC resolve the ROFR issue, he said the "concept behind competition, including in transmission, is a good one and I think will prove valuable to consumers."Asked if the 1935 Federal Power Act provides the best platform for the transition to a 21st century clean-energy grid and economy, Glick said the nearly century-old law could stand to be revisited by Congress. When Congress acted in 1935 the line between state and federal jurisdiction was "pretty clear," he said. "But over time, the line has gotten much more blurry," in large part because of the advent of distributed generation and demand response, "which FERC has acted to encourage over the last decade or so. And that's caused some friction between the state regulators and between FERC." But given politics he suggested any changes to the 87-year-old law are unlikely.Glick, who as an adviser to the late Sen. Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., in the 1990s wrote proposed legislation to require electricity competition at retail nationally, also doesn't see much prospect politically for improving the abysmal state of electricity competition for retail consumers outside of Texas. "Competition can be helpful but it's an idea I don't – I wouldn't say its time has come and gone, but it's an idea that certainly is not – there's not a lot of focus on that in most states around the country these days."The retail competition bill he drafted for Bumpers also would have required competitive regional wholesale power markets throughout the country. Asked if FERC should use its authority to require RTO or ISO markets everywhere, he noted that the West and Southeast are the only remaining areas without some form of an organized regional market. Interested parties in the West are increasingly coalescing around the establishment of enhanced market regionalization, Glick said, noting the region's increasing acceptance of market regionalization is being driven by the need to better integrate the region's vast and far-flung renewable energy resources and respond to climate change. However, he held out little prospect for improving grid regionalization in the Southeast. "I think FERC arguably has the authority, but I think it's – I'm not entirely sure the commission is going to be anytime soon focused on the Southeast. So I think it's better at this point to focus efforts to encourage greater regional efforts including RTO development in the West, where there's there seems to be some momentum for that,Support the show

The Biden administration has pledged to meet what it calls “the accelerating threat of climate change” with a wide-ranging campaign to discourage the production and use of fossil fuels in order to control the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases said to be the principal cause of global warming. The White House has directed regulatory agencies and departments across the executive branch to “tackle the climate crisis.” The administration has set a goal to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector by 2035.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is an independent regulatory agency whose enabling statutes include the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act. FERC's statutory responsibilities include regulation of the transmission and wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce, and authorization of proposals for the construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities.Doing its part to tackle the climate crisis, FERC has proposed a new policy that will greatly expand the scope of the climate-related environmental impact analysis required for proposed natural gas projects. Traditionally, such analysis has been limited to an evaluation of the emissions that would result directly from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Going forward, FERC is proposing that such analysis will also evaluate the emissions that would result indirectly from the upstream production and downstream use of the natural gas to be handled by the proposed project.In other policy statements having to do with the electric sector, FERC has announced that it will consider proposals from entities it regulates to add into wholesale electricity prices any charges that are levied by state regulators on greenhouse gases emitted by the power plants producing the electricity.Does FERC have the legal authority to implement these new climate-related policies and, by doing that, dramatically expand the scope of its regulatory activities? Join us for a probing, wide-ranging discussion of the statutes and case law that provide the answer to this vitally important question. Featuring:-- Bernard L. McNamee, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP; Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-- J. Kennerly Davis, Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia

The Biden administration has pledged to meet what it calls "the accelerating threat of climate change" with a wide-ranging campaign to discourage the production and use of fossil fuels in order to control the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases said to be the principal cause of global warming. The White House has directed regulatory agencies and departments across the executive branch to "tackle the climate crisis." The administration has set a goal to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector by 2035.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is an independent regulatory agency whose enabling statutes include the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act. FERC's statutory responsibilities include regulation of the transmission and wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce, and authorization of proposals for the construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities.Doing its part to tackle the climate crisis, FERC has proposed a new policy that will greatly expand the scope of the climate-related environmental impact analysis required for proposed natural gas projects. Traditionally, such analysis has been limited to an evaluation of the emissions that would result directly from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Going forward, FERC is proposing that such analysis will also evaluate the emissions that would result indirectly from the upstream production and downstream use of the natural gas to be handled by the proposed project.In other policy statements having to do with the electric sector, FERC has announced that it will consider proposals from entities it regulates to add into wholesale electricity prices any charges that are levied by state regulators on greenhouse gases emitted by the power plants producing the electricity.Does FERC have the legal authority to implement these new climate-related policies and, by doing that, dramatically expand the scope of its regulatory activities? J. Kennerly Davis, Jr. and Bernard McNamee joined us for a probing, wide-ranging discussion of the statutes and case law that provide the answer to this vitally important question.Featuring:- J. Kennerly Davis, Jr., Former Senior Attorney, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP; Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia- Bernard L. McNamee, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP; Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Peggy and Sheila Hollis, acting executive director, United States Energy Assn., discuss the energy crisis in the United States and across the globe. She says it is heartbreaking in many parts of the world still. If you look to India, the temperatures are 104-114 many days and air conditioning does not exist. They also discuss: Two existential questions facing the energy environment. The history of hydroelectric power and the Federal Power Act. The challenges with energy, specifically in the United States. usea.org (5/31/22 - 773) IoT, Internet of Things, Peggy Smedley, artificial intelligence, machine learning, big data, digital transformation, cybersecurity, blockchain, 5G, cloud, sustainability, future of work, podcast, Sheila Hollis, United States Energy Assn. This episode is available on all major streaming platforms. If you enjoyed this segment, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts.

Peggy and Sheila Hollis, acting executive director, United States Energy Assn., discuss the energy crisis in the United States and across the globe. She says it is heartbreaking in many parts of the world still. If you look to India, the temperatures are 104-114 many days and air conditioning does not exist. They also discuss: Two existential questions facing the energy environment. The history of hydroelectric power and the Federal Power Act. The challenges with energy, specifically in the United States. usea.org (5/31/22 - 773) IoT, Internet of Things, Peggy Smedley, artificial intelligence, machine learning, big data, digital transformation, cybersecurity, blockchain, 5G, cloud, sustainability, future of work, podcast, Sheila Hollis, United States Energy Assn. This episode is available on all major streaming platforms. If you enjoyed this segment, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts.

April 25, 2022 — PG&E is now operating the Potter Valley Project under an annual license, after a mystery applicant was turned down cold. And forest health enthusiasts gathered at a Buddhist monastery in Leggett over the weekend to strategize how to build fire resilience using grant funding and local labor. On Thursday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted PG&E a license to operate the project until next April, writing that the Federal Power Act does require the Commission to issue an annual license to the current licensee, “under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of…” The brief notice concluded that “PG&E is authorized to continue operation of the Potter Valley Project, until such time as the Commission orders disposition of the project.” On Friday, the Commission informed Antonio Manfredini, who had applied for the license on behalf of a business called PVP 77, that it was rejecting his application because it was late; he had not done any of the initial consultations or studies that were required; and the “application patently fails to conform to the requirements of the Commission's regulations.” The applicant has 30 days to request a rehearing. UPDATE: Manfredini filed an appeal on Monday morning, arguing that “The License Application submitted continues the process initiated by PG&E (P-77-285) on 4/62017 and continues the process initiated by The NOI Parties (P-77-298) on 6/28/2019.” The appeal refers to PG&E and the NOI parties as “Proxy.” A coalition that included The Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission, Sonoma County Water Agency, California Trout, and the County of Humboldt, notified FERC in June of 2018 that it was calling itself the Notice of Intent (NOI) Party, and that it intended to file for the license to the Potter Valley Project. Environmental groups are expecting a further order from FERC to surrender and decommission the project, though very little information is available about what that means exactly or how long it will take. Clifford Paulin, who is legal counsel for the Potter Valley Irrigation District, was not surprised that FERC granted PG&E the annual license. For him, the remaining uncertainty lies in the big-picture conditions of the drought, as well as details about the pikeminnow reduction program and how additional conditions to the license, if any, will be implemented. Paulin said that, while the irrigation district's contract with PG&E entitles it to 50 cubic feet per second, the district's directors acceded to PG&E's request to stay on a demand-based system, only asking for the amount the district can sell to its customers. This is calculated in part to protect the infrastructure at Lake Pillsbury and Scott Dam in Lake County. It also means that the only additional water going into the Russian River and Lake Mendocino from the Eel River will be the minimum instream flows required by the National Marine Fisheries Service to protect salmonids in the Russian River. Paulin thinks the wild card application may have been part of what caused the delay in FERC's announcement about the annual license, but said he didn't “see Manfredini being much of a factor' otherwise. Curtis Knight, the Executive Director of the environmental organization California Trout, described the granting of the annual license as “a big step,” which “everyone knew was coming…the only weird note was Manfredini.” CalTrout is one of the parties that was working with Russian River water users to apply for the license, but was unable to raise enough money to pay for the studies. Now it's signed on to a notice to sue PG&E under the Endangered Species Act, claiming that the fish ladder at Cape Horn Dam causes unauthorized take. Still, Knight expects that the Manfredini “distraction won't amount to much;” and is looking forward to a timeline for the surrender of the project. He hasn't given up on working with Russian River water users, but said “It may have to get a little messy first,” before FERC defines the process of decommissioning the project. In the north county, two environmental organizations gathered at the Rangjung Yeshe Gomde Tibetan Buddhist Monastery in Leggett to brainstorm plans to resist the ravages of climate change and further the vitality of the Eel River through forest management. The Northern Mendocino Ecosystem Recovery Alliance has joined with the Eel River Recovery Project to push for a major shift in preparing for fire and bringing it back to the landscape. Eli Rider, of the Leggett Valley Volunteer Fire Department, and Will Emerson, of the Bell Springs Fire Department in Laytonville, are inspired by a $4.9 million grant from CalFire to carve a fuel break into Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in the Red Mountain wilderness, off of Bell Springs road. The grant is being administered by the Mendocino County Resource Conservation District. In addition to a proviso that would keep the use of heavy equipment to a minimum, Rider says one of the requirements for keeping carbon down is hiring local people. “There's a large grant in the Red Mountain area and the Usal forest to create shaded fuel breaks,” he said during a pause in Saturday's activities. “They have written into the grant a triple bottom line, which is trying to lower the carbon footprint of the project. Having a local workforce will accomplish that by not having to truck a bunch of equipment in from far away…we are in the process of a workforce development program to train and hire local workers.” Emerson hopes the project will expand from what Rider explained was the most obvious place to start. Work on phase one of the project is expected to be performed over the next three years, with planning for phase two scheduled to start next year. “We're hoping that fuel break will continue over to Bell Springs Road, and then hook in with other projects up and down Bell Springs Road, so we establish some really good fire breaks around our communities and through them, so that we could stop a larger fire that might come through,” Emerson said. Rider added that Red Mountain was a logical place to start because BLM biologists and staff from the Redwood Forest Foundation Inc. had already conducted the biological assessments and archaeological reviews that were needed before work could begin. “It was ready to be implemented,” he concluded. Pat Higgins, the Executive Director of the Eel River Recovery Project, is a fish guy who's been pushing for forest health as key to revitalizing the river for years. He sees enormous potential for the new approach — if it's done right. “It'll be a huge undertaking, to restore forest health in the traditional Indian sense of harmony on the landscape,” he predicted. “And once that happens, you have to use control burns, and you have to stay on it. We're looking, actually, not just for economic opportunity, but a change in perspective, a commitment to stewardship. And this could happen in a way that is economically viable — depending on how we organize.”

April 19, 2022 — The license for the Potter Valley Project expired on Thursday, April 14. By Friday, a coalition of environmentalists and fishermen had filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue PG&E, the project owner, under the Endangered Species Act. The main complaint is that the fish passage facility at Cape Horn Dam in Potter Valley causes unauthorized harm to endangered fish, by preventing their passage when the facility is clogged, or making them vulnerable to predators as they try to climb the ladder. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has authority over the project because its stated purpose is generating hydropower, has not yet declared if it will order PG&E to surrender and decommission the project, or if it will allow the utility to continue operating it on a year-to-year basis, as the company has said it plans to do while it recoups the cost of an expensive piece of replacement equipment. Redgie Collins, the Legal and Policy Director for CalTrout, one of the groups intending to sue PG&E, says that, with the expiration of the license, “PG&E no longer has take coverage for listed species, meaning that they can no longer harm, harass, directly kill or injure salmon (or) steelhead at their project site. The current fish passage operation is functionally broken and leads to take. It's time for PG&E to realize that this project does in fact take fish.” Last month, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) wrote a letter to FERC, saying that the Project is causing take of fish on the endangered species list, in a manner not anticipated in that agency's 2002 biological opinion. The biological opinion allowed the project to operate if it met certain conditions. Collins added that, “Along with the license, NMFS' biological protections also expire with that license, meaning that PG&E is now vulnerable to litigation we are bringing.” PG&E said in a statement that, “The potential claims described in the notice are without merit. PG&E is strongly committed to environmental responsibility, and we are operating the Potter Valley Project in full compliance with the National Marine Fisheries Services' (NMFS) Biological Opinion (BiOp) and its incidental take statement, which is incorporated into the Potter Valley license. Upon expiration of a license, the Federal Power Act requires FERC to issue an annual license, which renews automatically, with the same terms and conditions for the project, until it's relicensed, transferred or decommissioned. That means PG&E will continue to own and operate the Potter Valley Project safely under the existing license conditions until the project is transferred or FERC issues a final license surrender and decommissioning order.” The project is currently unable to produce power because of a damaged transformer, which could take two years to rebuild. Alicia Hamann, the Executive Director of Friends of the Eel River, which has been at the forefront of the fight to remove the dams, describes the Eel as “a river of opportunity,” with 280 miles of habitat for genetically diverse fish that haven't made it to the ocean since 1922, when Scott Dam was built. She's not entirely opposed to a continued diversion of water from the Eel into the Russian River. “The genetics for summer steelhead live on in rainbow trout that are trapped behind Scott Dam,” she said. “This means that there's potential for the offspring of those trout to essentially become summer steelhead once again, if they could just reach the ocean…there's still an opportunity for an ecologically appropriate diversion. By that, I mean one that operates without a dam and runs during the wet season, when the Eel has water supplies to spare. At this point, it's up to Russian River water users to decide how much they want to continue the diversion, and to come together to fund and implement a plan.” That might be easier said than done. On the day the license expired, Janet Pauli, of the Potter Valley Irrigation District, reported on the results of early surveys to the Inland Water and Power Commission. The IWPC had hired a consultant who polled Russian River water users. “It ended up being a polling base of about 23,000 people,” Paulie said. “I think they did nearly 400 polls of individuals. “The goal was to see if people had an understanding of their water supply, where it comes from, potential vulnerability with regard to the Potter Valley Project, how they felt water supply was being managed, or if they even knew. At the end of that poll, it was determined that to get a two-thirds vote for a parcel tax would be tough. Might not be successful. And would not, in all likelihood, generate the kind of funding that we believe we're going to need moving forward in this next phase of the project license.” It's impossible to be unaware of water conditions in the Eel River basin, according to Adam Canter, the Director of Natural Resources for the Wiyot Tribe at the Table Mountain Bluff Reservation in Humboldt Bay. The tribe is not party to the intent to sue PG&E, but is not taking the option of a lawsuit off the table. “We're excited that the license is expired,” Canter acknowledged; “but that doesn't necessarily mean that we can celebrate and walk away and not have to continue to put pressure on PG&E and FERC to move forward with actual decommissioning and dam removal…it's been really bad the last five or ten years, and I think it's hard to ignore, just the reduction in flows, the toxic algae blooms, the reduction in the number of fish returning to the river. It's just more visible on the Eel River basin side.” The uncertainty over what FERC will do next is not the only mystery surrounding the Potter Valley Project, which is FERC docket number 77. One day before the license expired, Antonio Manfredini, an agent for a business called PVP 77 LLC at PO Box 777 in Roseville, filed an application for the license. They missed the 2019 deadline to file a notice of intent, and Manfredini and PVP 77 don't show up on an international database of businesses. No one answered the phone number listed on the application. Photo credit: Scott Dam, Kyle Schwartz, CalTrout

I'm joined by Erin Murphy and Amy Swearer to discuss our Second Amendment rights and the current attacks on our rights. Do so-called gun control regulations have a greater impact on a woman's right to self-defense? Erin Murphy is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Her practice focuses on Supreme Court, appellate, and constitutional litigation. She has argued before both the Supreme Court and most of the federal courts of appeals on a wide variety of issues, including the scope of the First Amendment, the Takings Clause, the Federal Power Act, the Appointments Clause, and the National Labor Relations Act. Erin has also argued several appeals defending Second Amendment rights, including the appeal that produced the opinion the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. Erin has been recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the nation’s “Outstanding Women Lawyers” and a “Rising Star” and has been ranked by Chambers & Partners as one of the nation’s top appellate lawyers. Amy Swearer is a legal fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. MENTIONED: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opin...​ ---------- Follow Gayle Trotter-- WEBSITE: https://gayletrotter.com​ TWITTER: https://twitter.com/gayletrotter​ PARLER: @gayletrotter FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/gayle.s.trotter​ INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/gayle_trotter/​ SOUNDCLOUD: https://soundcloud.com/gayle-trotter​ Support: https://www.patreon.com/gayletrotter​ You can also listen to The Gayle Trotter Show on Spotify, iHeart Radio, Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, Google Play, TuneIn, Stitcher and other podcast platforms.

Today we're going to review the innovations in electricity that led to the modern era of computing.  As is often the case, things we knew as humans, once backed up with science, became much, much more. Electricity is a concept that has taken hundreds of years to really take shape and be harnessed. And whether having done so is a good thing for humanity, we can only hope.  We'll take this story back to 1600. Early scientists were studying positive and negative elements and forming an understanding that electricity flowed between them. Like the English natural scientist, William Gilbert  - who first established some of the basics of electricity and magnetism in his seminal work De Magnete, published in 1600, when he coined the term electricity. There were others but the next jump in understanding didn't come until the time of Sir Thomas Browne, who along with other scientists of the day continued to refine theories. He was important because he documented where the scientific revolution was in his 1646 Pseudodoxia Epidemica. He codified that word electricity. And computer by the way.  And electricity would be debated for a hundred years and tinkered with in scientific societies, before the next major innovations would come. Then another British scientist, Peter Collinson, sent Benjamin Franklin an electricity tube, which these previous experiments had begun to produce.  Benjamin Franklin spent some time writing back and forth with Collinson and flew a kite and proved that electrical currents flowed through a kite string and that a metal key was used to conduct that electricity. This proved that electricity was fluid. Linked capacitors came along in 1749. That was 1752 and Thomas-Francois Dalibard also proved the hypothesis using a large metal pole struck by lightning.  James Watt was another inventor and scientist who was studying steam engines from the 1760s to the late 1790s. Watt used to quantify the rate of energy transfer, a unit to measure power. Today we often measure those watts in terms of megawatts. His work in engines would prove important for converting thermal into mechanical energy and producing electricity later. But not yet.  1799, Alessandro Volta built a battery, the Volta Pile. We still refer to the resistance of an ohm when the current of an amp flows through it as a volt. Suddenly we were creating electricity from an electrochemical reaction.  Humphry Davy took a battery and invented the “arc lamp.” By attaching a piece of carbon that glowed to it with wires. Budding scientists continued to study electricity and refine the theories. And by the 1820s, Hans Christian Orsted proved that an electrical current creates a circular magnetic field when flowing through a wire. Humans were able to create electrical current and harness it from nature. Inspired by Orsted's discoveries, André-Marie Ampère began to put math on what Orsted had observed. Ampére observed two parallel wires carrying electric currents attract and that they repeled each other, depending on the direction of the currents, the foundational principal of electrodynamics. He took electricity to an empirical place. He figured out how to measure electricity, and for that, the ampere is now the unit of measurement we use to track electric current. In 1826 Georg Ohm defined the relationship between current, power, resistance, and voltage. This is now called “Ohms Law” and we still measure electrical resistance in ohms.  Michael Faraday was working in electricity as well, starting with replicating a voltaic pile and he kinda' got hooked. He got wind of Orsted's discovery as well and he ended up building an electric motor. He studied electromagnetic rotation, and by. 1831 was able to generate electricity using what we now call the Faraday disk. He was the one that realized the link between the various forms of electricity and experimented with various currents and voltages to change outcomes. He also gave us the Faraday cage, Faraday constant, Faraday cup, Faraday's law of induction, Faraday's laws of electrolysis, the Faraday effect, Faraday paradox, Faraday rotator, Faraday wave, and the Faraday wheel. It's no surprise that Einstein kept a picture of Faraday in his study.  By 1835, Joseph Henry developed the electrical relay and we could send current over long distances.  Then, in the 1840s, a brewer named James Joule had been fascinated by electricity since he was a kid. And he discovered the relationship between mechanical work and heat. And so the law of conservation of energy was born. Today, we still call a joule a unit of energy. He would also study the relationship between currents that flowed through resistors and how they let off heat, which we now call Joules first law. By the way, he also worked with Lord Kelvin to develop the Kelvin scale.  1844, Samuel Morse gave us the electrical telegraph and Morse code. After a few years coming to terms with all of this innovation, JC Maxwell unified magnetism and electricity and gave us Maxwell's Equations, which gave way to electric power, radios, television, and much, much more.  By 1878 we knew more and more about electricity. The boom of telegraphs had sparked many a young inventor into action and by 1878 we saw the lightbulb and a lamp that could run off a generator. This led Thomas Edison to found Edison Light and Electric and continue to refine electric lighting. By 1882, Edison fired up the Pearl Street Power station and could light up 5,000 lights using direct current power. A hydroelectric station opened in Wisconsin the same year. The next year, Edison gave us the vacuum tube. Tesla gave us the Tesla coil and therefore alternating current in 1883, making it more efficient to send electrical current to far away places. Tesla would go on to develop polyphase ac power and patent the generator to transformer to motor and light system we use today, which was bought by George Westinghouse. By 1893, Westinghouse would use aC power to light up the World's Fair in Chicago, a turning point in the history of electricity.  And from there, electricity spread fast. Humanity discovered all kinds of uses for it. 1908 gave us the vacuum and the washing machine. The air conditioner came in 1911 and 1913 brought the refrigerator. And it continued to spread. By 1920, electricity was so important that it needed to be regulated in the US and the Federal Power Commission was created. By 1933, the Tennessee Valley Authority established a plan to built damns across the US to light cities. And by 1935 The Federal Power Act was enacted to regulate the impact of damns on waterways. And in the history of computing, the story of electricity kinda' ends with the advent of the transistor, in 1947. Which gave us modern computing. The transmission lines for the telegraph put people all over the world in touch with one another. The time saved with all these innovations gave us even more time to think about the next wave of innovation. And the US and other countries began to ramp up defense spending, which led to the rise of the computer. But none of it would have been possible without all of the contributions of all these people over the years. So thank you to them. And thank you, listeners, for tuning in. We are so lucky to have you. Have a great day!

In statutes such as the Federal Power Act and Clean Water Act, Congress divided responsibility for oversight of energy generation and transmission projects between federal agencies and the States. In recent years, several States have more aggressively used their perceived statutory and regulatory authority in furtherance of climate change goals, prompting litigation from affected parties and regulatory pushback from the Trump Administration. Our experts will discuss the most recent legal and regulatory skirmishes over the balancing of federal and state jurisdiction over energy policy, including: Judicial rejection of extended consideration of Section 401 certification requests; EPA proposed Clean Water Act regulations; State subsidies for power generation plants and renewable power mandates; and, State-issued rights of first refusal to incumbent utilities to build transmission lines.Featuring:- Gordon A. Coffee, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP- Prof. Ari Peskoe, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law SchoolVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In statutes such as the Federal Power Act and Clean Water Act, Congress divided responsibility for oversight of energy generation and transmission projects between federal agencies and the States. In recent years, several States have more aggressively used their perceived statutory and regulatory authority in furtherance of climate change goals, prompting litigation from affected parties and regulatory pushback from the Trump Administration. Our experts will discuss the most recent legal and regulatory skirmishes over the balancing of federal and state jurisdiction over energy policy, including: Judicial rejection of extended consideration of Section 401 certification requests; EPA proposed Clean Water Act regulations; State subsidies for power generation plants and renewable power mandates; and, State-issued rights of first refusal to incumbent utilities to build transmission lines.Featuring:- Gordon A. Coffee, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP- Prof. Ari Peskoe, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law SchoolVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Ari Peskoe talks to Matt Christiansen, legal advisor to FERC Commissioner Richard Glick, about the Federal Power Act and Matt’s recent article co-authored with Commissioner Glick about FERC and climate change. Ari and Matt discuss recent federal court decisions about Zero Emission Credits (ZECs) and what they mean for the future of state electricity policies. Then, Matt outlines his article and explains how FERC’s authority over interstate power markets and natural gas infrastructure siting relates to greenhouse gas reduction efforts. “FERC and Climate Change” is available on the Energy Law Journal’s website https://www.eba-net.org/assets/1/6/%5bGlick_and_Christiansen%5d%5bFinal%5d.pdf Visit our website here https://eelp.law.harvard.edu Full transcript available here http://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/CleanLaw-22-Ari-Christiansen-FERC.pdf

This appeal arises out of the February 2016 general rate case filed by Otter Tail Power Company. As part of that case, Otter Tail argued that two interstate high-voltage transmission lines in North Dakota and South Dakota—the Big Stone Area Transmission Lines (BSAT Lines)—should not be subject to state retail ratemaking because they are subject to a wholesale tariff approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rejected Otter Tail’s argument and found that the wholesale costs and revenues of the BSAT Lines should be considered in setting Otter Tail’s retail rates. The court of appeals reversed. The court of appeals concluded that the Commission’s decision is “preempted by section 219 of the Federal Power Act because it prevents Otter Tail from recovering $13.8 million in revenues, which in turn prevents it from receiving the FERC-approved and section 219-mandated return on equity for its investment in the BSAT Lines.” The court of appeals also concluded that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority by directing Otter Tail to include the costs and revenues of the BSAT Lines in a transmission-cost recovery rider. On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are: (1) whether the Commission had authority to include the BSAT Lines in Otter Tail’s general rate case; and (2) whether the Commission had authority to direct Otter Tail to include the costs and revenues of the BSAT Lines in the company’s existing transmission-cost recovery rider. (Minnesota Public Utilities Commission)

Last month, Bloomberg News revealed a leaked memorandum from the Department of Energy purporting to be part of a larger order out of DOE invoking the Federal Power Act and Defense Production Act to “save” economically endangered nuclear and coal plants on the basis of fuel security and resilience. This rumored DOE Order would keep certain nuclear and coal units running pending analyses by the national energy labs evaluating the resilience and economic integrity of the nation’s electric grid. Critics argue that this is an legally overreaching effort to bailout nuclear and coal units that are being buffeted by market forces that makes these generation units uneconomic. Defenders of potential DOE action retort that the markets are distorted by subsidies, price manipulations and regulatory interventions that preordain the failure of baseload electric units, and that the security and resilience of the nation’s electric supply is being jeopardized because of the regulatory mismanagement of resources. Our Teleforum participants will discuss possible DOE action, and what it means for the nation’s energy policy.Featuring:Hon. Mark W. Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, United States Department of EnergyStephen Moore, Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Project for Economic Growth, Institute for Economic Freedom and OpportunityModerator: Raymond L. Gifford, Partner, Management Committee Member, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Last month, Bloomberg News revealed a leaked memorandum from the Department of Energy purporting to be part of a larger order out of DOE invoking the Federal Power Act and Defense Production Act to “save” economically endangered nuclear and coal plants on the basis of fuel security and resilience. This rumored DOE Order would keep certain nuclear and coal units running pending analyses by the national energy labs evaluating the resilience and economic integrity of the nation’s electric grid. Critics argue that this is an legally overreaching effort to bailout nuclear and coal units that are being buffeted by market forces that makes these generation units uneconomic. Defenders of potential DOE action retort that the markets are distorted by subsidies, price manipulations and regulatory interventions that preordain the failure of baseload electric units, and that the security and resilience of the nation’s electric supply is being jeopardized because of the regulatory mismanagement of resources. Our Teleforum participants will discuss possible DOE action, and what it means for the nation’s energy policy.Featuring:Hon. Mark W. Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, United States Department of EnergyStephen Moore, Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Project for Economic Growth, Institute for Economic Freedom and OpportunityModerator: Raymond L. Gifford, Partner, Management Committee Member, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On April 19, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing and several consolidated companion cases. The Court considered whether Maryland encroached on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) rate-setting power when directing its local electricity distribution companies, via a “Generation Order,” to enter into a fixed-rate contract with an energy provider selected through a bidding process. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Maryland’s Generation Order was preempted by federal law because it effectively set the rates the producer would receive for sales resulting from a regional auction overseen by FERC, and in effect also extended a three-year fixed price period set under the Federal Power Act to twenty years. The questions before the Supreme Court were: (1) Whether, when a seller offers to build generation and sell wholesale power on a fixed-rate contract basis, the Federal Power Act field-preempts a state order directing retail utilities to enter into the contract; and (2) whether FERC’s acceptance of an annual regional capacity auction preempts states from requiring retail utilities to contract at fixed rates with sellers who are willing to commit to sell into the auction on a long-term basis. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that Maryland's regulatory program--which disregards an interstate wholesale rate set by FERC--is preempted by the Federal Power Act, which vests in FERC exclusive jurisdiction over interstate wholesale electricity rates. Justice Ginsburg’s opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. -- To discuss the case, we have James Coleman, who is Assistant Professor at University of Calgary Law School.

On February 24, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the consolidated cases Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing and CPV Maryland, LLC v. Talen Energy Marketing. -- In this case, the Supreme Court considers whether Maryland encroached on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) rate-setting power when directing its local electricity distribution companies, via a “Generation Order,” to enter into a fixed-rate contract with an energy provider selected through a bidding process. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Maryland’s Generation Order was preempted by federal law because it effectively set the rates the producer would receive for sales resulting from a regional auction overseen by FERC, and in effect also extended a three-year fixed price period set under the Federal Power Act to twenty years. -- The questions before the Supreme Court are: (1) Whether, when a seller offers to build generation and sell wholesale power on a fixed-rate contract basis, the Federal Power Act field-preempts a state order directing retail utilities to enter into the contract; and (2) whether FERC’s acceptance of an annual regional capacity auction preempts states from requiring retail utilities to contract at fixed rates with sellers who are willing to commit to sell into the auction on a long-term basis. -- To discuss the case, we have James Coleman, who is Assistant Professor at University of Calgary Law School.

On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court decided several energy cases consolidated under the heading Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association. These cases concern a practice called “demand re­sponse,” in which operators of wholesale markets pay electricity consumers for commitments not to use power at certain times. In the regulation challenged here, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) required those market operators, in specified circumstances, to compensate the two services equivalently—that is, to pay the same price to demand response providers for conserving energy as to generators for making more of it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated this regulation, however, holding it beyond the FERC’s authority under the Federal Power Act as well as arbitrary and capricious, for failure to justify adequately a potential windfall to demand response providers. -- The Supreme Court granted certiorari on two questions: (1) Does the Federal Power Act permit FERC to regulate these demand response transactions at all, or does any such rule impinge on the States’ residual authority? (2) Even if FERC has the requisite statutory power, did FERC fail to justify adequately why demand response providers and electricity producers should receive the same compensation? -- By a vote of 6-2, the Court reversed the judgment of the D.C. Circuit and remanded the case, holding that (1) FERC did possess adequate regulatory authority under the Federal Power Act; and (2) FERC’s decision to compensate demand response providers at locational marginal price was not arbitrary and capricious. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Alito was recused from this case. -- To discuss the case, we have James Coleman, who is assistant professor at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Law and Haskayne School of Business.

On October 14, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association and EnerNOC v. Electric Power Supply Association. -- These consolidated cases involve the efforts of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to specify the methodology that operators in the wholesale electricity market use when compensating users for a commitment to reduce their consumption at particular times, a phenomenon known as “demand response.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit determined that FERC lacked statutory authority to impose such a methodology. The Supreme Court agreed to consider the following two questions: (1) Whether FERC reasonably concluded that it has authority under the Federal Power Act to regulate the rules used by operators of wholesale electricity markets to pay for reductions in electricity consumption and to recoup those payments through adjustments to wholesale rates; and (2) Whether the D.C. Circuit erred in holding that the rule issued by FERC is arbitrary and capricious. -- Justice Alito appears to be recused from this case. -- To discuss the case, we have James Coleman, who is assistant professor at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Law and Haskayne School of Business.