绕过联邦制和Negawatts行政法

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Sharon B. Jacobs
{"title":"绕过联邦制和Negawatts行政法","authors":"Sharon B. Jacobs","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2406684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Presidential unilateralism has become a defining feature of the executive branch. But a related and equally important phenomenon has been largely ignored: federal agency efforts to circumvent statutory federalism boundaries. The article calls this move \"bypassing federalism.\" Bypassing involves the use of existing jurisdictional authority to work de facto rather than de jure reallocations of power. The article explores agency bypassing through the lens of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) promotion of demand response in electricity markets. Demand response refers to customer sales of negative watts, or \"negawatts,\" back to the electrical grid. FERC, eager to promote demand-side management programs but stymied by the jurisdictional limitations in the Federal Power Act of 1935, recently adopted a strategy that bypasses these federalism boundaries by setting up demand response programs in wholesale markets (which are under its control) to parallel state and local programs. Although the strategy has boosted program participation, the article ultimately concludes that bypassing is an insalubrious administrative innovation. While it allows agencies to further national objectives without challenging jurisdictional boundaries head on, the strategy has significant downsides. First, statutory constraints may limit an agency’s options in a way that results in the promotion of second-best over first-best policies. Second, even de facto jurisdictional adjustments raise federalism questions that we might prefer be addressed through the legislative process. Finally, by making a dysfunctional statutory scheme workable, bypassing threatens to delay legislative solutions.","PeriodicalId":51610,"journal":{"name":"Iowa Law Review","volume":"68 1","pages":"885"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bypassing Federalism and the Administrative Law of Negawatts\",\"authors\":\"Sharon B. Jacobs\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2406684\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Presidential unilateralism has become a defining feature of the executive branch. But a related and equally important phenomenon has been largely ignored: federal agency efforts to circumvent statutory federalism boundaries. The article calls this move \\\"bypassing federalism.\\\" Bypassing involves the use of existing jurisdictional authority to work de facto rather than de jure reallocations of power. The article explores agency bypassing through the lens of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) promotion of demand response in electricity markets. Demand response refers to customer sales of negative watts, or \\\"negawatts,\\\" back to the electrical grid. FERC, eager to promote demand-side management programs but stymied by the jurisdictional limitations in the Federal Power Act of 1935, recently adopted a strategy that bypasses these federalism boundaries by setting up demand response programs in wholesale markets (which are under its control) to parallel state and local programs. Although the strategy has boosted program participation, the article ultimately concludes that bypassing is an insalubrious administrative innovation. While it allows agencies to further national objectives without challenging jurisdictional boundaries head on, the strategy has significant downsides. First, statutory constraints may limit an agency’s options in a way that results in the promotion of second-best over first-best policies. Second, even de facto jurisdictional adjustments raise federalism questions that we might prefer be addressed through the legislative process. Finally, by making a dysfunctional statutory scheme workable, bypassing threatens to delay legislative solutions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Iowa Law Review\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"885\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Iowa Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2406684\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iowa Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2406684","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

总统单边主义已成为行政部门的一个显著特征。但一个相关且同样重要的现象却在很大程度上被忽视了:联邦机构试图绕过联邦制度的法定界限。文章称这一举动是“绕过联邦制”。规避涉及利用现有的司法管辖权进行事实上而不是法律上的权力重新分配。本文从联邦能源管理委员会(FERC)促进电力市场需求响应的角度探讨了机构规避问题。需求响应是指客户销售的负瓦,或“负瓦”返回电网。FERC渴望促进需求侧管理项目,但受到1935年《联邦电力法》管辖权限制的阻碍,最近采取了一项策略,通过在批发市场(在其控制下)建立需求响应项目,与州和地方项目并行,从而绕过了这些联邦制的界限。虽然该策略提高了项目参与,但文章最终得出结论,绕过是一种不健康的行政创新。虽然它允许各机构在不挑战管辖界限的情况下进一步实现国家目标,但该战略有明显的缺点。首先,法定约束可能会以某种方式限制机构的选择,导致推广次优政策而不是最佳政策。其次,即使是事实上的管辖权调整也会引发联邦制问题,我们可能更希望通过立法程序来解决这些问题。最后,通过使一个功能失调的法定方案可行,回避可能会推迟立法解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bypassing Federalism and the Administrative Law of Negawatts
Presidential unilateralism has become a defining feature of the executive branch. But a related and equally important phenomenon has been largely ignored: federal agency efforts to circumvent statutory federalism boundaries. The article calls this move "bypassing federalism." Bypassing involves the use of existing jurisdictional authority to work de facto rather than de jure reallocations of power. The article explores agency bypassing through the lens of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) promotion of demand response in electricity markets. Demand response refers to customer sales of negative watts, or "negawatts," back to the electrical grid. FERC, eager to promote demand-side management programs but stymied by the jurisdictional limitations in the Federal Power Act of 1935, recently adopted a strategy that bypasses these federalism boundaries by setting up demand response programs in wholesale markets (which are under its control) to parallel state and local programs. Although the strategy has boosted program participation, the article ultimately concludes that bypassing is an insalubrious administrative innovation. While it allows agencies to further national objectives without challenging jurisdictional boundaries head on, the strategy has significant downsides. First, statutory constraints may limit an agency’s options in a way that results in the promotion of second-best over first-best policies. Second, even de facto jurisdictional adjustments raise federalism questions that we might prefer be addressed through the legislative process. Finally, by making a dysfunctional statutory scheme workable, bypassing threatens to delay legislative solutions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1915 as the Iowa Law Bulletin, the Iowa Law Review has served as a scholarly legal journal, noting and analyzing developments in the law and suggesting future paths for the law to follow. Since 1935, students have edited and have managed the Law Review, which is published five times annually. The Law Review ranks high among the top “high impact” legal periodicals in the country, and its subscribers include legal practitioners and law libraries throughout the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信