Effective Regulation of Public Utilities
Agencies do not need to conduct experiments in order to rely on the prediction that an unsupported stone will fall.
Associated Gas Distributors v. FERC, 824 F.2d 981, 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (finding that regulators need not conduct factual hearings to learn that monopolists will act in their self-interest)
U.S. District Court for Wisconsin: State corporate structure regulation in relation to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution
Holding company whose utility subsidiary served Wisconsin consumers challenged in federal court the state’s holding company statute, on Commerce Clause grounds. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Pike v. Bruce Church precedent, a state may impose nondiscriminatory burdens on interstate commerce if the state’s purposes are legitimate and sufficient. This testimony, prepared for the State of Wisconsin, describes the state purposes served by utility regulation.