Narragansett decision and its aftermath

Journal Article · Tue Jan 01 04:00:00 EST 1985 · Energy Law J.; (United States)

OSTI ID:5533101

Hobelman, C D

Since the Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision in Narragansett Electric Co. v. Burke, the issue of whether costs incurred by a wholesale supplier under Federal Power Commission/Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FPC/FERC) rate schedules must be passed through to the retail customers of a wholesale purchaser has come before other state courts and commissions. Attacks upon the Narragansett decisions doctrine that costs resulting from FERC-approved rates must be passed through have become more sophisticated than the ''glaringly unfair'' arguments advanced in 1977. The premise of more recent attacks has been prudence in managerial choice among alternative sources of power and upon state approval as a condition precedent to any contract for the purchase of electricity.

• Research Organization: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby, and MacRae, Washington, DC
• OSTI ID: 5533101
• Journal Information: Energy Law J.; (United States), Journal Name: Energy Law J.; (United States) Vol. 6:1; ISSN ELJOE
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY
293000 -- Energy Planning & Policy-- Policy
Legislation
& Regulation
296000* -- Energy Planning & Policy-- Electric Power
CASE LAW
CONTRACTS
ELECTRIC POWER
ELECTRIC UTILITIES
LAWS
LAWSUITS
LEGAL ASPECTS
NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
POWER
PRICES
PUBLIC UTILITIES
RATE STRUCTURE
REGULATIONS
RETAIL PRICES
US DOE
US FERC
US ORGANIZATIONS