Accelerating Energy

The episode packs substantial policy substance with specific details about Section 403 authority, the 14 proposed principles in the ANOPR, timeline milestones, and jurisdictional nuances between federal and state regulators. However, there is notable padding with administrative procedural explanation and throat-clearing about legal doctrine that consumes significant runtime without advancing novel insights about the actual business or regulatory challenges.

“the proposal itself, and again, this is a nod towards keeping the jurisdictional lines clean, would attach with respect to loads over 20 megawatts”

“a lot of the proposed 14 principles in the ANOPR are parallel or fit within kind of the thrust of those recommended improvements to the interconnection process, writ large”

The episode applies established FERC doctrine (Order 888, 2023, 1920A) to a new domain (large load interconnection), which is incremental rather than breakthrough thinking. The major questions and Loper Bright analysis is competent but recycles standard Supreme Court doctrine without novel arguments about how it applies here. The New York v. FERC deep-dive, while thorough, rehashes settled law rather than offering contrarian or first-principles reinterpretation.

“Justice Thomas says, look, the statute says transmission, and statute doesn't say bundled or unbundled. It just says the word transmission”

“he was careful to have it apply to large loads of 20 megawatts or more, limit it to interstation transmission facilities, and apply what FERC refers to as the 7-factor test”

Ken Irvin is a senior Sidley Austin energy partner with deep regulatory expertise; Terence Healey is a fellow FERC practice partner; Peter Bruland is an appellate litigator who has argued before the Supreme Court. All three are practicing attorneys directly involved in shaping and litigating energy policy, not commentators. They bring genuine operational depth and client-facing credibility, though the episode format limits their ability to share confidential case insights or proprietary client data.

“Ken Irvin from the Washington, D.C. office at Sidley Austin”

“Terence Healey, from our Boston office, and fellow partner in our energy practice group”

The episode references specific FERC orders (2023, 2023A, 1920, 1920A), Wood Mackenzie demand forecasts (116 GW growth), EIA power sales figures for 2025, and cites New York v. FERC with precision. However, it lacks concrete company examples, actual interconnection timelines from specific projects, or quantified cost impacts on ratepayers. The tri-state tariff rejection is cited only at the end with a docket number; more specific data on project delays or cost overruns would strengthen the case.

“Wood Mackenzie, for example, has got a report saying expect 116 gigawatts of growth in the coming years”

“EIA forecasts power sales for 2025 will rise up to 1,527 billion kilowatt hours for just residential customers, 1,467 kilowatt hours for commercial, and over 1 thousand billion kilowatts for industrial”

The host (Irvin) asks competent follow-up questions and invites panelists to clarify concepts like hybrid facilities and cost causation, but rarely presses for deeper reasoning or challenges assertions. Questions are largely procedural (what is an ANOPR? what are the timelines?) rather than adversarial or exploratory. The panel agrees broadly on the framework without substantive disagreement being probed. Notable exception: Bruland's discussion of major questions doctrine provokes some back-and-forth, but it remains abstract rather than applied.

“Ken Irvin: Let me get you to clarify for everyone what we mean when we say a hybrid facility”

“Ken Irvin: Do you think this is more of a new phenomenon that FERC is applying authority it's always had, or is this FERC inventing powers that it didn't have before?”