From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association
United States Supreme Court
136 S. Ct. 760 (2016)
In 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (defendant) issued Order No. 745 (the rule) seeking to pay demand-response providers better and encourage their participation in wholesale electricity markets. Demand-response programs were arrangements to pay individual electricity consumers to reduce their electricity usage during periods of high demand or usage. The providers aggregated the individual arrangements and offered this bundle of agreed-upon reductions as a bid in wholesale markets like a bid to supply electricity to the wholesale market. The rule required that demand-response bids receive the same price for electricity conservation as utilities received in the wholesale market for electricity generation (i.e., locational marginal price). For a demand-response bid to qualify to receive the locational marginal price, the bid’s acceptance had to ultimately save wholesalers money. FERC considered alternative compensation schemes. However, based on the economic analysis of a regulatory expert and careful consideration of alternative proposals, FERC determined that demand-response bids and generator bids should receive the same price because they both provided the same value to the wholesale market. Pursuant to FERC rules, state regulatory authorities had the power to bar demand-response providers from wholesale markets if the state so chose. The Electric Power Supply Association (plaintiff) challenged the rule as a usurpation of state power to regulate retail electricity rates. The court of appeals vacated the rule as ultra vires or outside of FERC’s authority because the rule engaged in the direct regulation of the retail electricity sales by encouraging less retail consumption. Alternatively, the court held that the rule was arbitrary and capricious because FERC failed to adequately explain why demand-response providers receiving the locational marginal price was just compensation. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kagan, J.)
Dissent (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 630,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 630,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.