As first proposed two years ago, FirstEnergy's case before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio asked for a different charge altogether to make utility customers
guarantee electricity sales by its unregulated generation affiliate from certain coal and nuclear plants.
Not exact matches
That means implementing one of three basic scenarios: (1) consumers paying more for less
electricity; (2)
electricity prices remaining steady and taxpayers being called upon to subsidize the difference between the profits from actual
electricity sales and the profits
guaranteed by government; or (3) some combination of the two.
But since endangering utility profits would likely galvanize the industry once and for all against emissions regulation, the green dilemma boils down to figuring out a way to reduce
electricity sales while
guaranteeing utility profits.
In the case of investment in clean
electricity, the rate of increase in the average price of
electricity can be minimized by negotiating price and
sales guarantees with potential investors in clean
electricity while leaving the price of dirty
electricity unchanged.
Reported cases include: Gill v Meyers (reasonableness and UCTA), Films Rover v Cannon Film
Sales (test for grant of mandatory interlocutory injunction), Standard Chartered Bank v PNSC and others (for SGS); Mattis v Toussaint (acted for defendant in successfully resisting claim for finder's fee in respect of stolen painting), Yukong Lines v Rendsburg — The Rialto (tortious conspiracy and ancillary injunctive relief against controller of corporation), REC v Thames Water (test for grant of interlocutory injunction in field of
electricity supply), De Molestina and Others v Ponton (acted for defendant in successfully rescission of share distribution agreements), and Marubeni Corporation v Government of Mongolia (claim on state
guarantee)