Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
American Electric Power Service Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 21-4072, 22-3351, 23-3196, 23-3324, 23-3366, 23-3417 · judgment January 17, 2025
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
Regional transmission organizations (“RTOs”) operate the interstate electricity grid independently, to foster competition, improve reliability, and lower prices. Congress in the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) mandated that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) “shall have jurisdiction over all facilities for [interstate] transmission,” 16 U.S.C. § 824(b)(1), and that RTO membership remain “voluntary,” id. § 824a(a). Congress also directed FERC to provide incentives “to each ... utility that joins” an RTO. Id. § 824s(c). Petitioner committed to join an RTO, and Ohio then passed a law purporting to require membership. Below, the Sixth Circuit held that Ohio could mandate RTO membership. And it denied Petitioner an incentive by reading into the federal incentive statute a nontextual exclusion for utilities subject to a state RTO mandate. The questions presented are:
-
Whether the Sixth Circuit correctly held that the FPA does not preempt Ohio’s RTO mandate, where the grounds for Sixth Circuit’s decision—that FERC lacks exclusive jurisdiction over interstate transmission facilities, and that Ohio’s law primarily regulates intrastate transmission—conflict with decisions by the Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits recognizing that FERC’s jurisdiction is exclusive and with settled law that transmission facilities operating as part of the interstate grid (as Ohio’s do) constitute interstate transmission.
-
Whether RTO mandates render utilities ineligible for incentives under 16 U.S.C. § 824s(c) (as the Sixth Circuit held) or not (as two FERC Chairmen found).
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Zachary Charles Schauf
Jenner & Block, LLP
For respondent
Cynthia S. Bogorad
Spiegel & McDiarmid, LLP
Proceedings
- Nov 10 2025Petition DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
- Oct 08 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
- Oct 08 2025Reply of petitioner American Electric Power Service Corporation filed. (Distributed)
- Sep 22 2025Brief of respondent Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel in opposition filed. VIDED.
- Sep 22 2025Brief of Federal Respondent in opposition filed. VIDED.
- Sep 19 2025Brief of respondent Public Utilities Commission of Ohio in opposition filed. VIDED.
- Jul 24 2025Solicitor General's motion to extend the time to file a response is granted. The time to file responses has been extended to and including September 26, 2025, for all respondents.
- Jul 24 2025Brief of respondent PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. in support filed. VIDED.
- Jul 23 2025Motion of the Solicitor General to extend the time to file a response from July 28, 2025 to August 27, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jul 17 2025Motion of Buckeye Power, Inc. to extend the time to file a response from July 28, 2025 to September 26, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jul 17 2025The motions to extend the time to file responses are granted and the time is extended to and including September 26, 2025, for all respondents.
- Jul 17 2025Brief of respondent Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. in support filed. VIDED.
- Jul 16 2025Motion of Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel to extend the time to file a response from July 28, 2025 to September 26, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jul 16 2025Motion of Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to extend the time to file a response from July 28, 2025 to September 26, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jun 24 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 28, 2025)