Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 24-2527, 24-3786 · judgment July 11, 2025
Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Ninth Circuit decision below, a petition filed soon after the judgment below, and a business petitioner.
Questions presented
Regional transmission organizations (“RTOs”) operate the interstate electricity grid independently. 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,” 2d. § 824a(a). Congress also directed FERC to provide incentives “to each ... utility that joins” an RTO. Id. § 824s(c). Here, after Petitioners joined an RTO and FERC awarded them incentives, California enacted a statute that FERC interpreted to mandate membership. The Ninth Circuit held California could do so. And it denied Petitioners an incentive by reading into the federal statute a nontextual exclusion for utilities subject to state RTO mandates. The questions presented are:
-
Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held that the FPA does not preempt California’s RTO mandate, where the grounds for its decision—that FERC lacks exclusive jurisdiction over interstate transmission facilities, and that California’s law mandating who operates interstate transmission facilities somehow regulates “intrastate wholesale markets and retail sales”—accord with a recent decision of the Sixth Circuit but conflict with decisions by the Third, Fifth, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits recognizing that FERC’s jurisdiction is exclusive and with settled law that transmission facilities operating on the interstate grid (as Petitioners’ facilities do) are interstate transmission.
-
Whether RTO mandates render utilities ineligible for incentives under 16 U.S.C. § 824s(c).
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Zachary Charles Schauf
Jenner & Block, LLP
For respondent
Christopher David Hu
California Department of Justice
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Feb 23 2026Petition DENIED.
- Jan 28 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/20/2026.
- Jan 28 2026Reply of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al. not accepted for filing. (To be Corrected - January 29, 2026)
- Jan 28 2026Reply of petitioners Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al. filed. (Corrected) (Distributed)
- Jan 09 2026Brief of respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in opposition filed.
- Jan 09 2026Waiver of right of respondent California Department of Water Resources to respond filed.
- Dec 02 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 9, 2026.
- Dec 01 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 10, 2025 to January 9, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 07 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 10, 2025.
- Nov 05 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 10, 2025 to December 10, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Oct 07 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 10, 2025)