InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association

The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had the authority to regulate demand response transactions.

577 U.S. 260 · No. 14-840 · 2015 term · Roberts Court

Decided Jan 25, 2016 · argued Oct 14, 2015

Economic activity · Federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: electric power

Majority opinion: Elena Kagan

The voteMajorityDissent

6–26 in the majority, 2 in dissent

2 dissents (7–2)

Reversed and remanded. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

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. Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in this case was the last opinion he wrote before his death in February 2016.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2015 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianSotomayorGinsburgKaganBreyerKennedyJ. RobertsScaliaThomas

Majority(6)

Dissent(2)

Did not take part: Samuel Alito.

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
Respondent
Electric Power Supply AssociationElectric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Federal Power
Kind of law
Federal Statute
Decided by
Interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order; Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jan 25, 2016DecidedDecided · Decided 6–2: reversed and remanded. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission won.
  2. Oct 14, 2015ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit: vacated, with a dissent.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

21 other argued cases since 1946 on federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: electric power, newest first.

  1. West Virginia v. Environmental Protection AgencyLandmark · Administrative law142 S. Ct. 2587Jun 30, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 2587Economic activity6–36–3 band

  2. NRG Power Marketing, LLC, et al. v. Maine Public Utilities Commission et al.558 U.S. 165Jan 13, 2010 · 558 U.S. 165Economic activity8–18–1 band

  3. Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al.556 U.S. 208Apr 1, 2009 · 556 U.S. 208Economic activity5–45–4 band

  4. Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, et al.554 U.S. 527Jun 26, 2008 · 554 U.S. 527Economic activity5–27–2 band

  5. Arcadia, Ohio, et al. v. Ohio Power Company, et al.498 U.S. 73Nov 27, 1990 · 498 U.S. 73Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
  6. American Paper Institute, Inc. v. American Electric Power Service Corp. et al.461 U.S. 402May 16, 1983 · 461 U.S. 402Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
  7. Federal Energy Administration et al. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., et al.426 U.S. 548Jun 17, 1976 · 426 U.S. 548Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  8. Federal Power Commission v. Conway Corp. et al.426 U.S. 271Jun 7, 1976 · 426 U.S. 271Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  9. Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians et al. v. Federal Power Commission et al.420 U.S. 395Mar 3, 1975 · 420 U.S. 395Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
  10. Federal Power Commission v. New England Power Co. et al.415 U.S. 345Mar 4, 1974 · 415 U.S. 345Economic activity7–0Unanimous band
  11. Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Federal Power Commission et al.411 U.S. 747May 14, 1973 · 411 U.S. 747Economic activity6–36–3 band
  12. Federal Power Commission v. Florida Power & Light Co.404 U.S. 453Jan 12, 1972 · 404 U.S. 453Economic activity4–27–2 band
  13. Gainesville Utilities Department et al. v. Florida Power Corp.402 U.S. 515May 24, 1971 · 402 U.S. 515Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
  14. Atlantic City Electric Co. et al. v. United States et al.400 U.S. 73Dec 8, 1970 · 400 U.S. 73Economic activity4–45–4 band
  15. Federal Power Commission v. Union Electric Co.381 U.S. 90May 3, 1965 · 381 U.S. 90Economic activity6–36–3 band
  16. Federal Power Commission v. Southern California Edison Co. et al.376 U.S. 205Mar 2, 1964 · 376 U.S. 205Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  17. Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation362 U.S. 99Mar 7, 1960 · 362 U.S. 99Economic activity6–36–3 band

  18. Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co.350 U.S. 348Feb 27, 1956 · 350 U.S. 348Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  19. Federal Power Commission v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.347 U.S. 239Mar 15, 1954 · 347 U.S. 239Economic activity4–36–3 band
  20. Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. et al. v. Federal Power Commission et al.343 U.S. 414May 26, 1952 · 343 U.S. 414Economic activity6–27–2 band
  21. Grand River Dam Authority v. Grand-Hydro335 U.S. 359Nov 22, 1948 · 335 U.S. 359Economic activity5–45–4 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.