Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Roe v Wade’

Today, abortion. Tomorrow marriage equality and contraception.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. This was expected, given the recent leaking of the Alito draft opinion.

The Alito opinion purports to determine the validity of the most fundamental rights of American citizens not by any contemporary legal or moral principles, but rather by turning the clock backwards by two or more centuries to see what the Founding Fathers meant by the words they used in the Constitution. In practice, this amounts to an exercise in historical fiction by the six conservative justices as they attribute their own policy preferences to their favorite Founding Fathers.

At any rate, the high court’s Dobbs decision should not be viewed as some sort of sudden or unforeseeable event. Dobbs is neither an earthquake, tornado, nor any other kind of surprise, even before the Alito opinion leak. Not at all. Dobbs is the result of the basic structure of the United States Constitution.

Contrary to what the GOP politicians spout, the Constitution wasn’t written by a benevolent deity. It was written by a group of white men, many of whom were slave-owners. Indeed, slavery and concessions made to the slave states to induce them to sign on to the Constitution (e.g., the Three-Fifths Compromise) comprise the ultimate foundation of the U.S. Constitution. Chief among those concessions, and a leading cause of today’s Dobbs decision, is the Electoral College.

The GOP’s smart move was to recognize the Electoral College for what it really is: the single greatest gerrymandering device in all of American law. The Electoral College means that there really is no such thing as a national presidential election. Rather, the Electoral College means that competing candidates for the U.S. presidency run for governor in each of the fifty states, and if one wins enough states to obtain a majority of the Electors, he or she wins regardless of the popular vote.

The popular vote for president is still important, but not on a national basis. It’s important only on a state-by-state basis, that is, within each individual state. That accounts for the GOP’s long game on voting rights, because for most of the states, if they can flip a state by as little as one vote they get all that state’s electors. Just look back to Karl Rove’s efforts to fire a bunch of U.S. attorneys who said they had more important things to do than going after voter fraud. Moscow Mitch McConnell then piled on to make sure that Obama didn’t get to appoint Merrick Garland, while Trump got to appoint three far right conservatives. McConnell violated some “traditions” of the U.S. Senate, but what he did was neither unconstitutional nor illegal.

The take-away here is that the GOP has had a long game of using the Constitution as it exists to enforce their minority rule, and Dobbs is just the latest evidence of that. Marriage equality and even the right of Americans to obtain and use contraceptives are next on the 6-3 Supreme Court chopping block. That’s no exaggeration. Clarence Thomas has expressly said he wants to eliminate those rights.

What’s required goes far beyond just getting out the vote this coming November. The GOP has been working, and will continue to work, on sabotaging Americans’ voting rights. If that includes the federal seizure of state voting machines because Italian satellites were allegedly switching votes from Trump to Biden, so be it. Trump sent the U.S. Gov’t. off on a wild goose chase to investigate that, and as yesterday’s January 6 Committee hearing showed, only two or three sane officials in the Justice Department stood between the United States and a constitutional crisis.

No, what’s needed is a new Constitutional Convention so that we can scrap what is essentially a constitution designed to embrace slavery and advantage slave states and bring it into the 21st century. I, for one, am rather tired of listening to right wingers tell us what a group of 18th century slaveholders and slavery enablers might have been thinking.

Read Full Post »

Alito

Justice Samuel Alito

Alito’s Leaked Opinion
Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked majority opinion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, _ U.S. _ (2022) discloses that the U.S. Supreme Court is primed to overrule both Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the two leading cases holding that the right to an abortion is protected under the United States Constitution.

Yesterday’s Chicago Tribune reported that when the U.S. Supreme Court officially hands down its opinion, twenty-six (26) states, including Texas and Florida, are either certain or likely to enact laws that either severely restrict the right to abortion or ban it outright. (“If Roe is overturned, ruling could have secondary effect on Illinois’ economy,” Chicago Tribune, June 13, 2022). The Tribune article suggests that corporations may seek to relocate their headquarters to states like Illinois, in which the right to obtain an abortion will be protected. The article concedes that it may take years for such changes, and their related economic effects, to come about.

Assuming that there’s sufficient political will, the economic effects on renewable energy from overturning Roe could occur much sooner.

That there exists any tangency at all between energy law and reproductive rights may sound unusual, but the response to Alito’s ruling should take advantage of the principles Alito himself announces in his leaked opinion. In particular, Alito stresses that our nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty should enable the people’s elected representatives to decide how abortion should be regulated (Dobbs, pgs. 6, 31). Elected representatives in other states are likewise at liberty to respond to Dobbs by deciding how to regulate certain aspects of renewable energy.

How Renewable Energy Works
Because one electron is indistinguishable from another on the grid, electricity generated by renewable resources (wind, solar, etc.) is indistinguishable from electricity generated by a nuke or a coal-fired plant. To address this, renewable energy certificates (RECs) were developed as tradable certificates that recognize the green energy attributes of renewable electricity generation sources. One REC represents one megawatt-hour of renewable generation. RECs are tradable because they may be bought and sold separately from the actual electricity generated by the renewable system. The sale of RECs provides additional revenue for renewable generators and obviates the (nearly impossible) task of trying to schedule specific generation for specific load. The issuance and claiming of RECs is tracked, usually by the relevant transmission system operator.

A Renewable Energy Response to Dobbs
A state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) generally requires that electric public utilities procure a specified portion of their electricity supply requirements from renewable generation resources such as wind or solar power. These requirements may be met through a utility’s own renewable generation assets or through the purchase of RECs. A state has a lot of leeway to structure its RPS as it sees fit. A state RPS may have tiers of preferred RECs, or it may prefer RECs purchased from generation resources located within the state or in adjacent states. The RPS market is often referred to as the “mandatory market” because public utilities are required by law to purchase certain volumes of renewable energy.

The gist of the renewable energy response to Dobbs lies in two separate measures. First, in states like Illinois, where the right to abortion will be protected, RPSs would be amended to prevent RECs generated in states that restrict or prohibit abortion from being used to satisfy the RPS.

The second measure pertains to the “voluntary” market, that is, the market for the purchase of RECs by persons who are not legally required to purchase renewable energy but who nevertheless wish to support the development of renewable energy. Voluntary market purchasers may procure all or a portion of their electricity supply requirements from renewable generation. These REC purchasers “green” the electricity they actually use by buying a quantity of RECs. Buyers in the renewable energy market have the freedom to choose which RECs they buy, including choosing the state of origin of the RECs. The second response to Dobbs involves making clear to voluntary market buyers where a REC was generated, and the REC buyer can then choose whether it wishes to purchase a REC generated in one of the 26 states that are set to restrict or eliminate abortion rights. Welcome to your free market at work.

The Dormant Commerce Clause
The Dormant (or Negative) Commerce Clause is a doctrine that federal courts have inferred from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In a nutshell, the doctrine prohibits protectionist legislation by states.

The Sparkspread previously posted an entry on Judge Posner’s 2013 opinion in Illinois Commerce Commission v. FERC (“7th Circuit Casts Shadow Over State Renewable Portfolio Standards,” The Sparkspread, August 14, 2013), a cost allocation rate case in which Posner, when discussing RECs and RPSs, stated that the Dormant Commerce Clause would prohibit one state from discriminating against another’s renewable energy. Posner’s reasoning was wrong because he did not understand how REC markets operate and did not take into account the difference between the mandatory and voluntary REC markets.

Contrary to Posner’s position, a state’s limitations on the kinds of RECs that are acceptable for satisfaction of its own RPS do not present a dormant commerce clause issue because none of those limitations prevent a REC seller from selling its RECs in that state. In the voluntary market, any REC seller from any state can sell RECs generated anywhere in every other state. An RPS limitation on RECs from abortion-restricting states, on the other hand, pertains to the mandatory, not the voluntary market. Every state is free to determine as a policy matter what types of RECs may be used to satisfy its own RPS. A state’s elimination from its mandatory market of RECs generated in abortion-restricting states is no different than that state’s preference for, say, solar over wind RECs, or for RECs generated only in adjacent states. An RPS has nothing to say about the voluntary market, which it does not in any degree control.

I am not aware of any previous effort to address REC markets from this angle. Legislation would, of course, take time and effort to enact, but if, pursuant to Dobbs, elected representatives in 26 states see fit to restrict or eliminate a constitutional right that has been in place for nearly half a century, the elected representatives in the other 24 are equally free to express their policy preferences in their own RPSs. Alito would surely approve, no?

Energy markets tend to be exquisitely sensitive. The mere announcement of such a legislative initiative by a state would likely send through renewable energy markets a shock wave warranting measurement on the Richter scale. Expectations on REC sales would be affected, and, even more importantly, so would plans for new generation.

Read Full Post »