''FERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n'', 577 U.S. ___ (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. 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 The Federal Power Act is a law appearing in Chapter 12 of Title 16 of the United States Code, entitled "Federal Regulation and Development of Power". Enacted as the Federal Water Power Act on June 10, 1920, and amended many times since, its origina ...
, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is allowed to regulate “the sale of electric energy at wholesale in inter state commerce", including any activities that affect the wholesale price of electricity. This case involved a dispute about FERC's attempts to regulate a practice called "demand response". In demand response transactions, wholesale electricity suppliers pay consumers to use less electricity during periods in which electricity is in high demand. In certain circumstances, FERC required suppliers to pay conserving consumers the same price that they would pay electricity producers for generating electricity. 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.
Opinion of the Court
Writing for a majority of the Court,
Justice
Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the interpretation of what then constitutes "deserving" being impacted upon by numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspective ...
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. 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 dissenting opinion written by Justice Scalia before his death in February 2016, though his last majority opinion was in ''
Kansas v. Carr''.
[
]
See also
* List of United States Supreme Court cases
This page serves as an index of lists of United States Supreme Court cases. The United States Supreme Court is the highest federal court of the United States.
By Chief Justice
Court historians and other legal scholars consider each Chief J ...
* Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
The following is a complete list of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court organized by volume of the ''United States Reports'' in which they appear. This is a list of volumes of ''U.S. Reports'', and the links point to the contents of e ...
*
References
External links
* {{caselaw source
, case = ''FERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n'', 577 U.S. ___ (2016)
, googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1024603742905130870
, justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-840/
, oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-840
, other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion)
, other_url1 =https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-840-%20new_o75q.pdf
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
2016 in United States case law
Demand response
Electric power in the United States