Boston, MA 09/12/2014 (wallstreetpr) – PPL Corporation (NYSE:PPL) subsidiary PPL EnergyPlus’ 2011 filing regarding the enactment of a legislation received the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit support.
Invalidating State Legislation Decision
According to an article published by PRNewswire yesterday, PPL EnergyPlus and other electricity suppliers, experienced a clash between the rulings of the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals, earlier this year. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit supported a ruling issued by the Maryland District Court in the case. The decision established that the Maryland Public Service Commission violated the exclusive rights of the federal authority. It involved the regulation of the sales interstate wholesale electricity as it ordered sponsoring the advancement of natural gas-fired generation.
PPL Corporation (NYSE:PPL) companies have always believed that the state sponsorships for the development of power plants ultimately result in increased electricity charges for customers. Apart from this, the subsidies also create hindrances in future investments in the sector and cause an unnecessary shift of financing responsibility to customers, from developers. The PPL companies instead emphasize that well-structured and aptly regulated competitive sectors offer appropriate prices signals to producers.
Similar Case
In an another similar case, The Appeals Court’s formed a three judge panel made a unanimous decision in favor of PPL Corporation (NYSE:PPL) EnergyPlus and other electricity suppliers. The panel decided that a New Jersey regulation encouraged development of power plants by sponsoring advancement of a new generation in the state is irrelevant. The ruling stated that the law oversteps the regulatory authority of the state.
The judges pronounced that the federal government has special leverage over interstate rates that concern capacity prices to electric power generators. The New Jersey law allowed some generators to obtain preferential capacity rates. The judges said that the law clashed with one of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s regulation area, under the Federal Power Act.
