272:, 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. 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.
42:
292:
wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that FERC did not have authority to regulate demand response transactions. This was the last dissenting opinion written by
Justice Scalia before his death in February 2016, though his last majority opinion was in
287:
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
429:, 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").
357:
547:
318:
281:
90:
313:
17:
371:
562:
542:
308:
524:
552:
260:
transactions. Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in this case was the last opinion he wrote before his death in
February 2016.
253:
249:
46:
340:
557:
497:
235:
85:
506:
8:
171:
74:
269:
121:
257:
187:
163:
159:
65:
Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association et al.
295:
289:
175:
151:
536:
358:"A "view" from the Courtroom: The Justices return to a black and gray bench"
183:
143:
515:
284:
195:
225:
Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
367:
362:
125:
97:
41:
319:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court
212:
Kagan, joined by
Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
118:
548:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
314:
Lists of United States
Supreme Court cases by volume
534:
248:, 577 U.S. 260 (2016), was a case in which the
343:, 577 U. S. ____, slip op. at 2, 33–34 (2016).
392:41 Stat. 1063, as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 791a
477:, slip. op. at 1 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
309:List of United States Supreme Court cases
493:, 577 U.S. 260 (2016) is available from:
525:Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
351:
349:
275:
14:
535:
355:
280:Writing for a majority of the Court,
29:2016 United States Supreme Court case
346:
254:Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
563:Electric power in the United States
491:FERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n
475:FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn.
463:FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn.
451:FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn.
439:FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn.
427:FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn.
415:FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn.
337:FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn.
245:FERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n
35:FERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n
24:
18:FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn.
250:Supreme Court of the United States
47:Supreme Court of the United States
25:
574:
543:United States Supreme Court cases
483:
356:Walsh, Mark (February 22, 2016).
115:Elec. Power Supply Ass'n v. FERC
40:
468:
553:2016 in United States case law
456:
444:
432:
420:
408:
399:
386:
330:
256:had the authority to regulate
13:
1:
405:16 U.S.C. §§ 824(b), 824e(a).
324:
263:
7:
302:
10:
579:
516:Oyez (oral argument audio)
124:, 410 U.S. App. D.C. 103 (
234:
229:
224:
216:
208:
203:
137:
132:
110:
105:
80:
70:
60:
53:
39:
34:
465:, slip. op. at 2, 33-34.
453:, slip. op. at 2, 11-13.
220:Scalia, joined by Thomas
56:Decided January 25, 2016
236:Federal Arbitration Act
54:Argued October 14, 2015
441:, slip. op. at 2, 10.
276:Opinion of the Court
96:136 S. Ct. 760; 193
417:, slip. op. at 1-2.
374:on November 8, 2020
172:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
148:Associate Justices
270:Federal Power Act
241:
240:
16:(Redirected from
570:
529:
523:
520:
514:
511:
505:
502:
496:
478:
472:
466:
460:
454:
448:
442:
436:
430:
424:
418:
412:
406:
403:
397:
390:
384:
383:
381:
379:
370:. Archived from
353:
344:
334:
133:Court membership
44:
43:
32:
31:
21:
578:
577:
573:
572:
571:
569:
568:
567:
558:Demand response
533:
532:
527:
521:
518:
512:
509:
503:
500:
494:
486:
481:
473:
469:
461:
457:
449:
445:
437:
433:
425:
421:
413:
409:
404:
400:
391:
387:
377:
375:
354:
347:
335:
331:
327:
305:
278:
266:
258:demand response
188:Sonia Sotomayor
186:
174:
164:Clarence Thomas
162:
160:Anthony Kennedy
101:
55:
49:
30:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
576:
566:
565:
560:
555:
550:
545:
531:
530:
498:Google Scholar
485:
484:External links
482:
480:
479:
467:
455:
443:
431:
419:
407:
398:
385:
345:
328:
326:
323:
322:
321:
316:
311:
304:
301:
296:Kansas v. Carr
290:Antonin Scalia
277:
274:
265:
262:
252:held that the
239:
238:
232:
231:
227:
226:
222:
221:
218:
214:
213:
210:
206:
205:
201:
200:
199:
198:
176:Stephen Breyer
152:Antonin Scalia
149:
146:
141:
135:
134:
130:
129:
112:
108:
107:
103:
102:
95:
82:
78:
77:
72:
68:
67:
62:
61:Full case name
58:
57:
51:
50:
45:
37:
36:
28:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
575:
564:
561:
559:
556:
554:
551:
549:
546:
544:
541:
540:
538:
526:
517:
508:
499:
492:
488:
487:
476:
471:
464:
459:
452:
447:
440:
435:
428:
423:
416:
411:
402:
395:
389:
373:
369:
365:
364:
359:
352:
350:
342:
338:
333:
329:
320:
317:
315:
312:
310:
307:
306:
300:
298:
297:
291:
286:
283:
273:
271:
261:
259:
255:
251:
247:
246:
237:
233:
228:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
204:Case opinions
202:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
150:
147:
145:
142:
140:Chief Justice
139:
138:
136:
131:
127:
123:
120:
116:
113:
109:
104:
99:
93:
92:
87:
83:
79:
76:
73:
69:
66:
63:
59:
52:
48:
38:
33:
27:
19:
490:
474:
470:
462:
458:
450:
446:
438:
434:
426:
422:
414:
410:
401:
393:
388:
376:. Retrieved
372:the original
361:
336:
332:
294:
279:
267:
244:
243:
242:
230:Laws applied
191:
184:Samuel Alito
179:
167:
155:
144:John Roberts
114:
106:Case history
89:
64:
26:
285:Elena Kagan
196:Elena Kagan
537:Categories
368:SCOTUSblog
363:SCOTUSblog
341:No. 14–840
325:References
268:Under the
264:Background
71:Docket no.
378:March 27,
126:D.C. Cir.
98:L. Ed. 2d
81:Citations
489:Text of
303:See also
209:Majority
282:Justice
217:Dissent
528:
522:
519:
513:
510:
507:Justia
504:
501:
495:
394:et seq
194:
192:·
190:
182:
180:·
178:
170:
168:·
166:
158:
156:·
154:
117:, 753
75:14-840
128:2014)
111:Prior
88:260 (
380:2022
119:F.3d
91:more
86:U.S.
84:577
122:216
100:661
539::
366:.
360:.
348:^
339:,
299:.
396:.
382:.
94:)
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.