Tweeting and Polling:
Insults to Effective Regulation

A Texas judge once granted a woman a protective order “after taking a poll of everyone present in his crowded courtroom (the majority of whom were present for unrelated cases) and following the result of the vote.” 

It was 1992, so the judge didn’t tweet his poll. But days before voting on whether to let Georgia Power continue building the Vogtle nuclear plant—a multi-billion dollar decision—Georgia Commissioner Tim Echols did. From his December 14, 2017 tweet:

      Should we...

56% Finish despite overruns

38% Cancel w/ 5B put in rates

01% Costly conversion to gas

05% You decide. Your job.

This was not Commissioner Echols’s only poll. As he told Nuclear Intelligence Weekly (Feb. 15, 2017): “When I go to a rotary club [meeting] ... I ask people to raise their hands, ‘how many of you think we should move forward given all these difficulties,’ still two-thirds of the people want to move forward. That gives politicians ... the cover to be able to take a bold stand like I’m taking.”

Oversimplification and artificial sampling

Tweeting a poll has no place in serious regulation.  Let’s talk oversimplification, then sampling. . . .


Testimony, Papers, and Presentations

The testimony relates to AltaGas’s proposed acquisition of WGL Holdings, Inc. and Washington Gas Light Company.
The testimony addresses the following: the effect of the transaction on consumers, including: (1) reasonableness of the purchase price, including whether the purchase price was reasonable in light of the savings that can be demonstrated from the merger and whether the purchase price is within a reasonable range; (2) whether ratepayer benefits . . .
Testimony addresses the issues of whether the proposed transaction affects the interests of ratepayers; the ability of JCP&L and MAIT to provide safe, adequate, and proper utility service at just and reasonable rates; and whether the proposed transaction is in the public interest.
This expert report was submitted to a federal trial court in May 2016 on behalf of City of Jacksonville, Florida. The litigation, and report, involve a 1943 disaffiliation of a gas corporation from its holding company, as mandated by the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. The report explains why the disaffiliation did not prevent liability for the costs of environmental cleanup, if such liability exists under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, from passing to the new corporation.

Books by Hempling

Regulating Public Utility Performance

“[A] comprehensive regulatory treatise …. In all respects, it merits comparison with Kahn and Phillips."

Regulating Public Utility Performance:  The Law of Market Structure, Pricing and Jurisdiction

Learn More and Order

Preside or Lead

Preside or Lead?
The Attributes and Actions of Effective Regulators

Now Available on Kindle

Learn More and Order

Hempling Appearances

Energy Bar Association
Panel on Practice Principles for New Regulatory Lawyers

UDC Law School Panel
Is the Exelon Takeover of Pepco in the Public Interest?

Nigeria Electricity Regulatory Commission
3rd Judges’ Seminar

Telecom Forum
Asamblea Plenaria REGULATEL

view ALL

Receive Essays

Electricity Jurisdiction


While we will dearly miss you as NRRI's Executive Director—where you have been so invaluable—I am delighted that you will now be in the classroom enlightening and sparking the interest of the next generation.
— Paul J. Roberti, Commissioner, Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission