This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Michael R. Fontham (Respondent), according to Michael R. Fontham (Respondent), the case concerns a contract amendment approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that set conditions for a utility to bill an affiliate for mothballed generating units.
According to Michael R. Fontham (Respondent), according to Michael R. Fontham (Respondent), the utility failed to follow those procedures, did not consider the conditions, and did not record the decision in its minutes, as required.
According to Mr. Fontham, the parties dispute whether the Federal Power Act preempts the state from enforcing the contract terms, with the respondent arguing it does not.
According to United States (Amicus Curiae) via Austin C. Schlick, the amicus brief argues that regulation of wholesale rates for electric energy in interstate commerce is exclusively within FERC’s jurisdiction.
The Court noted a general prohibition on “trapping” and referenced a FERC‑approved rate schedule that determines how the allocation should be carried out.
Background and question before the Court
According to Michael R. Fontham (Respondent), according to Michael R. Fontham (Respondent), the contract amendment was approved by FERC and required the utility to follow specific procedures before billing an affiliate for mothballed units.
According to Michael R. Fontham (Respondent), according to Michael R. Fontham (Respondent), the utility failed to follow those procedures and did not record the decision in its minutes as required.
According to Justice (unspecified), qUESTION: What is -- what is the source of the rule that this is the sole remedy?
According to Justice (unspecified), qUESTION: Well, does that -- is that a death sentence, so to speak, if you find that the costs are trapped and unrecoverable?
According to Justice Scalia, qUESTION: They're not regulating the wholesale rates is what -- is the argument that will be made by the State.
What each side argues
Respondent (Louisiana Public Service Commission)
According to Michael R. Fontham (Respondent), according to Michael R. Fontham (Respondent), the FERC‑approved contract amendment established conditions and procedures that the utility must follow before billing an affiliate for mothballed units.
According to Michael R. Fontham (Respondent), according to Michael R. Fontham (Respondent), the utility failed to follow those procedures, failed to consider the conditions, and failed to record the decision in its minutes as required.
According to Mr. Fontham, there is nothing in the Federal Power Act that preempts the state from enforcing these requirements.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to United States (Amicus Curiae) via Austin C. Schlick, the dispute highlights the boundary between federal jurisdiction over wholesale electricity rates and state authority over utility contracts.
The Court noted a general prohibition on “trapping” and referenced a FERC‑approved rate schedule that determines how the allocation should be carried out.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 98c967882bde441a7930-r1-eca285aa5e1427cb.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.