FERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n, 577 U.S. 260 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had the authority to regulate demand response transactions.FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn., No. 14–840, 577 U. S. ____, slip op. at 2, 33–34 (2016). Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in this case was the last opinion he wrote before his death in February 2016.
Background Under the Federal Power Act,41 Stat. 1063, as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 791a et seq. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is allowed to regulate “the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce", including any activities that affect the wholesale price of electricity.16 U.S.C. §§ 824(b), 824e(a). This case involved a dispute about FERC's attempts to regulate a practice called "demand response".FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn., slip. op. at 1-2. In demand response transactions, wholesale electricity suppliers pay consumers to use less electricity during periods in which electricity is in high demand.FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn., slip. op. at 2 (noting that electricity suppliers can "offer electricity both more cheaply and more reliably by paying users to dial down their consumption than by paying power plants to ramp up their production"). In certain circumstances, FERC required suppliers to pay conserving consumers the same price that they would pay electricity producers for generating electricity.FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn., slip. op. at 2, 10. A group of electricity suppliers challenged FERC's regulation in court; they claimed that FERC lacked authority to regulate demand response transactions and that even if they did have the power to do so, FERC failed to justify why demand response providers and electricity producers should receive the same compensation.FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn., slip. op. at 2, 11-13.
Opinion of the Court Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Elena Kagan ruled that FERC possessed the "requisite statutory power" to regulate demand response transactions and that FERC adequately justified why demand response providers and electricity producers should receive the same compensation.FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn., slip. op. at 2, 33-34. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that FERC did not have authority to regulate demand response transactions.FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn., slip. op. at 1 (Scalia, J., dissenting). This was the last opinion and last dissenting opinion written by Justice Scalia before his death in February 2016, while his last majority opinion was in Kansas v. Carr.
See also List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court
References
External links