This note argues that a dual jurisdictional approach to demand response programming is better suited to mitigate environmental harms than an “either-or” regulatory model. Through an exploration of FERC’s authority over wholesale demand response, state authority over retail-level demand response, and implications for electricity and capacity markets arising out of the Court’s decision in FERC v. EPSA, this note will offer effective legal mechanisms for mitigating environmental costs, while fostering environmental benefits. The next section of this note analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of state and federal regulatory approaches to demand response in isolation.

Based on this assessment, this note suggests the policy mechanisms most conducive to environmentally-conscious electric energy regulation. This note concludes with a model regulatory scheme that utilizes demand response to mitigate global climate change and advance environmental sustainability.