Supreme Court hears oral arguments over electricity jurisdiction and class action settlement rules News
Supreme Court hears oral arguments over electricity jurisdiction and class action settlement rules

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments in two cases on Wednesday. In Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) v. Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) [SCOTUSblog docket], the court heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] on the issue of federal versus state authority over the sale of demand response in electricity markets under FERC Order 745 [JURIST report]. The case is linked with EnerNOC v. EPSA [SCOTUSblog docket]. On behalf of FERC, the Solicitor General argued that Order 745 is a strong example of cooperative Federalism, and the policy brings about billions of dollars in consumer benefits by lowering wholesale rates [SCOTUSblog op-ed]. The government argued that FERC Order 745 does not infringe on the retail market, as everything that is regulated under Order 745 occurs at the wholesale level. Additionally, states may opt out of demand response programs. Counsel for EnerNOC, a private company that provides energy information software, argued that Order 745 “provides a basis upon which there will be enough of a market in order to allow the wholesale side of the grid system to operate in an efficient way.” The EPSA argued that Order 745 allows retail electricity consumers to participate in the wholesale market; which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the States under the Federal Power Act [text]. The EPSA argued that grid operators do not wish to be regulated by both FERC and the states, when setting the market price for electricity derived from demand response programs. Additionally, EPSA challenged the government’s argument that the States may opt out of Order 745 because “there’s no other area of regulatory authority where FERC allows states to opt out.”

In Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez [SCOTUSblog docket] the Court heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] on a dispute over forced settlement of class actions [SCOTUSblog op-ed]. The court states the issue as follows:

(1) Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on his claim; (2) whether the answer to the first question is any different when the plaintiff has asserted a class claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but receives an offer of complete relief before any class is certified; and (3) whether the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity recognized in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., for government contractors is restricted to claims arising out of property damage caused by public works projects.

The court is analyzing whether complete relief renders a case moot and ends any case or controversy over the individual claim.

THIS DAY @ LAW

Pope Urban II sparks First Crusade

Pope Urban II threw his support behind what would become the First Crusade on November 27, 1095 during the Council of Clairmont. The Pope urged the council's participants to render aid to the Byzantine Empire, which was being attacked by the Seljuks. Pope Urban called for a wide coalition of rich and poor to combat the threat, which eventually resulted in the conquest of much of the Muslim-controlled Levant by the Crusaders and the establishment of the Crusader States. Read Pope Urban's address.  

Catholic Code of Canon Law revised

On November 27, 1983, the revised Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church went into effect. Learn more about the history of Canon Law from Professor Kenneth Pennington of the Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law.

Alfred Nobel creates Nobel Prize in his will

On November 27, 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his will, creating the Nobel Prize. Learn more about the history of the Nobel Prize and the Nobel Commission.