EnerNOC, Inc. v. Electric Power Supply Association

Linked with:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
14-841	D.C. Cir.	Oct 14, 2015 Tr.Aud.	Jan 25, 2016	6-2	Kagan	OT 2015

Holding: The Federal Power Act authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to regulate “ the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce,” including both wholesale electricity rates and any rule or practice “affecting” such rates, but it leaves the regulation of “any other sale” of electricity to the states. The FPA provides FERC with the authority to regulate wholesale market operators' compensation of demand response bids because the practices at issue directly affect wholesale rates, FERC has not regulated retail sales, and the contrary view would conflict with the FPA's core purposes. Moreover, FERC's decision to compensate demand response providers at the locational marginal price, which is the same price paid to generators, instead of at the locational marginal price less the retail rate for electricity, is not arbitrary and capricious when FERC provided a detailed explanation for that decision and responded at length to contrary views.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on January 25, 2016. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Opinion analysis: Court blesses lower wholesale power rates (Lyle Denniston)
Breyer stays on FERC case after stock sale (Lyle Denniston)
Argument analysis: When an empty chair may count the most (Lyle Denniston)
Argument preview: Evening out supply and demand (Lyle Denniston)
Court enlists U.S. views on Colorado marijuana case (Lyle Denniston)
Petitions of the day (Maureen Johnston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Dec 5 2014	Application (14A599) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 16, 2014 to January 15, 2015, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Dec 8 2014	Application (14A599) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until January 15, 2015.
Jan 15 2015	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 17, 2015)
Feb 11 2015	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 19, 2015, for all respondents.
Feb 11 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Electric Power Supply Association, et al. VIDED.
Feb 17 2015	Brief of respondent California Independent System Operator in support filed. VIDED.
Feb 17 2015	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by NRG Energy, Inc. VIDED.
Feb 17 2015	Brief amici curiae of Fourteen Utilities Including Consolidated Edison Co. of New York and Affiliates, et al. filed. VIDED.
Feb 17 2015	Brief of respondents California Public Utilities Commission, et al. in support filed. VIDED.
Feb 17 2015	Brief amici curiae of Delaware Division of the Public Advocate, et al. filed. VIDED.
Feb 18 2015	Brief amici curiae of Electricity Consumers and Demand Response Providers filed. VIDED.
Mar 19 2015	Brief of respondents Electric Power Supply Association, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED.
Apr 7 2015	Reply of petitioners EnerNOC, Inc., et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 8 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 24, 2015.
Apr 27 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 1, 2015.
May 4 2015	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by NRG Energy, Inc. GRANTED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
May 4 2015	Petition GRANTED The petition for a writ of certiorari in 14-840 is GRANTED. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The cases are granted limited to the following Questions: 1) Whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reasonably concluded that it has authority under the Federal Power Act, 16 U. S. C. 791a et seq., to regulate the rules used by operators of wholesale electricity markets to pay for reductions in electricity consumption and to recoup those payments through adjustments to wholesale rates. 2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the rule issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is arbitrary and capricious. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions. VIDED.
May 13 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner EnerNOC.
May 27 2015	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' briefs on the merits is extended to and including July 9, 2015. VIDED
May 27 2015	The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including August 31, 2015. VIDED
Jun 22 2015	Letter of amendment to financial disclosure statement received from counsel for respondents Electric Power Supply Association, et al. VIDED
Jun 22 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, In support of eithr party or of neither party, received from counsel for Electric Supply Association, et al. VIDED.
Jun 29 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioners EnergyConnect, Inc., Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers, and PJM Industrial Coalition, and Viridity Energy, Inc. VIDED.
Jul 6 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curie briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for PJM Interconnection LLC VIDED.
Jul 8 2015	Letter from counsel for respondent in support California Independent System Operator (CAISO) notifying Clerk that it will not be filing a brief on the merits in these proceedings. VIDED.
Jul 9 2015	Brief of petitioners EnerNOC, Inc., et al. (Private Petitioners) filed. VIDED.
Jul 9 2015	Joint appendix filed. (Two Volumes) VIDED. (Statement of costs filed.)
Jul 9 2015	Brief of respondent Joint States in support of FERC filed. VIDED.
Jul 9 2015	Brief of respondent California Public Utilities Commission in support of FERC filed. VIDED.
Jul 9 2015	Brief of respondent PJM Interconnection, LLC in support of FERC filed. VIDED.
Jul 10 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner in No. 14-840. VIDED
Jul 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of NRG Energy, Inc. in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Jul 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Electricity Consumers and Demand Response Providers filed. VIDED.
Jul 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Charles J. Cicchetti filed. VIDED.
Jul 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Energy Law Scholars filed. VIDED.
Jul 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Microgrid Resources Coalition filed. VIDED.
Jul 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Stanford Economics Professor Charles D. Kolstad filed. VIDED.
Jul 16 2015	Brief amici curiae of Grid Engineers and Experts in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Jul 16 2015	Brief amici curiae of Illinois, et al filed. VIDED.
Jul 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of The Guarini Center on Environmental, Energy and Land Use Law at New York University School of Law filed. VIDED.
Jul 16 2015	Brief amici curiae of Conservation Law Foundation, et al. filed. VIDED.
Jul 29 2015	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 14, 2015. VIDED
Jul 31 2015	CIRCULATED
Aug 12 2015	Record requested from U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit.
Aug 26 2015	Record received from U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit is electronic and available on PACER. A copy of the transcript of oral arguments is available electronically.
Aug 31 2015	Brief of respondents Midwest Load-Serving Entities filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Aug 31 2015	Brief of respondents Electric Power Supply Association, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Sep 1 2015	Brief amici curiae of CES and Dr. Silkman filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Sep 4 2015	Record from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, sent by the U.S. Dept. of Justice is electronic. The record can be accessed on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission public eLibrary website.
Sep 4 2015	Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General. VIDED.
Sep 4 2015	Brief amici curiae of North Carolina Utilities Commission, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Sep 8 2015	Brief amici curiae of Robert L. Borlick, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Sep 8 2015	Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Sep 8 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Public Utility Law Project of New York filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Sep 8 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Southern Company Services, Inc. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Sep 8 2015	Brief amici curiae of Nuclear Energy Institute and America's Natural Gas Alliance filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Sep 8 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Public Service Commission of New York filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Sep 24 2015	Reply of petitioners EnerNOC, Inc., et al. (Private Petitioners) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Sep 25 2015	Reply of respondent California Public Utilities Commission filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Sep 28 2015	Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General GRANTED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion. VIDED
Sep 29 2015	Reply of respondents Joint States filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Oct 14 2015	Argued. For federal petitioner: Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For private petitioners: Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. VIDED
Oct 15 2015	Letter from Clerk of Court to counsel of record for the parties in No. 14-840 & No. 14-841.
Jan 25 2016	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Scalia, J. filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Alito J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases. VIDED

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released additional orders from the January 11 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in CSX Transportation Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation Inc. and Toshiba Corp. v. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira and Stokeling v. United States.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority and Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson and Azar v. Allina Health Services.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Knick v. Township of Scott and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair.
On Friday, the justices meet for their January 18 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions relisted for this conference.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

EnerNOC, Inc. v. Electric Power Supply Association

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award