UC Law SF Scholarship Repository
Not a member yet
18602 research outputs found
Sort by
Ratemaking’s Trilemma and the Case for Time-Based Electricity Rates
Full text linkRatemaking has a trilemma. How should utilities and policymakers balance the competing goals of ratemaking: sufficiency, efficiency, and equity? Sufficiency is principally a legal constraint that creates a revenue floor during ratemakings to address concerns about unconstitutional takings. The latter goals—efficiency and equity—have fewer legal limitations but compel important policy tradeoffs when designing rate structures for electricity consumers. Recently, technological ad-vancements and shifting social priorities have prompted a rebalancing of these seemingly conflicting goals. New technologies have made time-based electricity rates a viable means of demand response in many communities, reducing the need for expensive and polluting peaker plants and increasing economic efficiency by more closely aligning the retail price for electricity (which historically has been flat) with the cost of providing electricity service. But a renewed focus on equitable considerations calls into question the wisdom of new time-based rates since they may eliminate important cross subsidies that ensure electricity is accessible to vulnerable customers.
Before allowing efficiency or equity to dominate the other when balancing ratemaking’s trilemma, electric utilities and policymakers should ask when, if ever, these two goals are actually in tension with one another. Empirical evidence generated to date, for example, demonstrates that the two are not always mutually exclusive goals. Much evidence suggests most time-based rates are not harmful to vulnerable populations’ financial well-being, but different subpopulations may be harmed by these rate designs in light of the heterogeneity in initial load profiles and price responsiveness across populations and geographies. Utilities and policymakers, therefore, should acknowledge the potential for harm and act to minimize it but continue experimenting with time-based rate programs.
Experimentation carried out across the country over decades highlights ways to mitigate the potential for negative equity consequences from time-based electricity rates while not unduly sacrificing the efficiency benefits these rates pro-vide. When considering introducing time-based rates, utilities should also consider providing vulnerable customers technology that enables them to shift demand in response to new price signals; educating customers on new rate structures and how best to respond to them, particularly during periods of transition from one set of rates to another; and utilizing pilot studies to better understand idiosyncrasies of their service areas, customers, and generation mixes to help craft rates that make the most sense for their customers. Although these recommendations do not eliminate ratemaking’s trilemma, they offer utilities and policymakers an opportunity to balance the equity and efficiency goals of ratemaking in an empirically informed manner
Special Joint Meeting of the Finance Committee & Audit Subcommittee Meeting - Notice and Agenda 04/15/2025
Full text linkAn Age of Statutes or an Age of Executive Orders? Conflicting Judicial and Presidential Visions of Policymaking
No full textTwo decades ago, then-Professor Elena Kagan hailed the era of presidential administration in which Presidents would launch major policy initiatives within the executive branch and end run congressional gridlocks. Since then, the President’s role in the regulatory state has snowballed. In his second term, President Donald Trump has used this authority to the utmost in a quantum leap in presidential administration. Paradoxically, the same Justices who have championed the unitary executive have created roadblocks to presidential policymaking. Overruling the Chevron doctrine, the Court has sought to cabin the role of agencies, and thus the newly supreme President, in statutory administration. The Court also articulated the major questions doctrine, which has been used almost exclusively to strike down agency actions taken under presidential directives. This Article argues that, despite the Court’s celebration of the unitary executive, it remains wedded to a view of policymaking that is at odds with that of recent presidents, most notably President Trump. That view seeks to center Congress, not the President, as the primary source of domestic policy. In contrast, recent presidents seem to view congressional action as only a launchpad for their own policy initiatives. A collision between these perspectives seems inevitable
Trumpian Impoundments in Historical Perspective
No full textDuring the election campaign and the first 100 days of his second term, President Donald Trump and key figures in his administration took actions and made statements suggesting that they believe the President holds a constitutional power to impound, or decline to spend, appropriated funds. They also suggested that they believe the executive branch is better suited than Congress to represent the common good in federal spending. Although both these arguments have historical antecedents, both are deeply flawed, and courts should reject them in an appropriate case. Rather than continue its trajectory toward executive governance, the United States should adhere to the formal constitutional framework, including its requirement of productive negotiation between Congress and the presidency over spending and other policy questions
Freedom of Expression in Next-Generation Computing
No full textExtended reality (XR)—the integration of virtual, augmented, and mixed reality technologies—creates immersive, embodied, and behaviorally integrated forms of communication that challenge traditional understandings of freedom of expression. While XR offers new opportunities for creativity, civic engagement, and cross-cultural participation, its immersive nature introduces risks of censorship, surveillance, biometric profiling, algorithmic manipulation, and inequitable access.
This Article situates XR within the framework of European human rights law. It begins by identifying the technical and psychological features that distinguish XR from conventional platforms, particularly presence, immersion, and embodiment, which transform speech into multisensory and interactive experiences. It then evaluates how existing legal protections— chiefly Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Council of Europe recommendations—apply to XR contexts. Although these frameworks emphasize legality, necessity, and proportionality, their application remains underdeveloped where expression occurs through avatars, immersive environments, and biometric data. Key cases such as Handyside v. United Kingdom, Delfi AS v. Estonia, and Bărbulescu v. Romania illustrate both the adaptability and limits of current doctrine when extended into immersive settings.
The Article concludes by proposing reforms to adapt human rights protections to XR. These include clarifying platform liability for real-time immersive interactions, enhancing transparency in algorithmic governance, strengthening privacy safeguards for biometric and behavioral data, addressing immersive misinformation or “mis-experience,” and promoting equitable access to XR technologies. Taken together, these measures would help ensure that XR develops as an inclusive and rights-respecting medium rather than a frontier for unchecked corporate or state control. By grounding its analysis in European legal traditions, this Article demonstrates both the urgency and feasibility of adapting existing frameworks to safeguard expressive freedoms in the age of immersive computing
