FERC Schedules Technical Conference on the Interaction Between State Energy Policies and FERC-Regulated Wholesale Electricity Markets in Eastern RTOs/ISOs

Mar 10, 2017

Reading Time : 3 min

By: Shawn Whites (Paralegal)

In a notice announcing the conference, Commission staff states that the primary goals of the conference are to foster discussion of potential regional solutions to reconcile competitive wholesale market frameworks with states’ increasing interest in supporting particular generation resources or resource attributes and enhance Commission staff’s understanding of the “potential for sustainable wholesale market designs that both preserve the benefits of regional markets and respect state policies.” While the technical conference itself likely will not have any immediate effect on resolving tensions between state policies and FERC-regulated wholesale markets, it could be an incubator for new ideas or compromises on changes to market designs or state policy approaches that could reduce those tensions going forward. 

As we reported earlier, ISO-NE and NYISO stakeholders are already assessing whether changes to their wholesale electricity markets are necessary to better align them with state and regional de-carbonization goals, with carbon pricing serving as one potential approach. Similar PJM stakeholder discussions are also under way, including through PJM’s Grid 20/20 initiative. Moreover, numerous litigated proceedings at FERC (including complaints and tariff filings) have raised issues regarding the impact of state policy initiatives on wholesale market prices and competition. These stakeholder forums and FERC proceedings all seek to address the increasingly common state efforts to implement energy policies that opponents believe interfere with FERC’s exclusive jurisdiction over regional wholesale electricity markets. Such state policies prioritize specific types of generation resources or resource attributes (e.g., through so-called “out of market” or “around market” subsidies, credits or other incentives) in an effort to preserve in-state jobs or meet environmental mandates or clean energy targets. This, opponents argue, can cause price suppression and unfairly diminish the competitiveness of other resources in the market—a concern that led PJM to devise an alternative to its Minimum Offer Price Rule, which we detailed here.

The technical conference is a further signal of the strong desire of Acting Chair Cheryl LaFleur and Commissioner Colette Honorable to find ways to ensure that wholesale market designs can work in tandem with state policy goals. But Commission staff’s notice, and the separate statement of Commissioner Honorable issued alongside it, recognize that this is no easy task.  Commission staff notes that, because wholesale electricity markets are designed to “select resources based on principles of operational and economic efficiency without specific regard to resource type,” state-supported generation leaves open the question as to how the markets can both select resources consistent with state policies and also preserve the principles of resource neutrality, reliability and cost-competitiveness. Staff states that this task is especially important in states that have also restructured their retail electricity markets (i.e., the majority of states in the ISO-NE, NYISO and PJM regions) in which particular classes of resources could reasonably participate in both markets.   

The technical conference will also no doubt wade into the ever-increasing debate regarding federal and state jurisdictional boundaries, and whether state policies aimed at subsidizing generation that participates in wholesale electricity markets violate constitutional limits. Complaints filed in federal district courts challenging subsidies for nuclear generators enacted in Illinois and New York, and the Supreme Court’s invalidation last year of a Maryland subsidy program (and refusal to hear challenges to a lower court decision invalidating a similar New Jersey subsidy program), all address such issues. Additional state efforts will likely lead to more challenges.


1 Specifically, ISO New England, Inc. (ISO-NE); New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO); and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.