As the White House sets new guidance for regulatory agencies, a new executive order brings fresh attention to states’ rights, executive power and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s jurisdictional boundaries.

The Federal Power Act establishes a clear division: states oversee retail electricity services, while FERC oversees interstate transmission and wholesale electricity markets. The statute explicitly provides that federal jurisdiction “shall not extend to facilities used in local distribution,” nor may FERC regulate “any other sale of electric energy” beyond wholesale transactions.

Recent developments suggest that FERC is testing the limits of the authority Congress gave it. Multiple proceedings before the commission — including Order 1920, on long-term planning for regional transmission expansion and co-located load disputes — implicate longstanding jurisdictional limits that Congress has never disturbed. Executive Order 14215, which President Trump signed on Feb. 18, directs executive agencies to conform their legal interpretations to the views of the executive branch. While FERC is not directly bound by presidential directives in the same manner as executive agencies, the order’s broad language could be interpreted as pressuring independent commissions to align with the administration’s legal position.

Honoré de Balzac said “Power is not revealed by striking hard or often, but by striking true.” In some proceedings, the executive order could strike true and help keep FERC within its statutory authority. In other issues before the commission, the concern is that the order could lead to federal overreach.  

Executive authority and FERC’s regulatory role

Executive Order 14215 mandates that “the President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch.” It prohibits agencies such as FERC from advancing legal interpretations that conflict with the president’s position: “no employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law.”

Several pending proceedings before FERC raise the question of whether emerging FERC decisions may be subject to the new executive order.

Order 1920 and federal transmission expansion

Order 1920 requires transmission planning regions to engage in long-term transmission planning over a 20-year horizon. The order is on appeal in part, on rehearing in part, and the focus of regional compliance filing development efforts across the United States. Proponents contend the order imposes obligations necessary for grid reliability and efficiency and that existing planning horizons are not sufficiently proactive. Critics see things quite differently: They see Order 1920 as an unlawful federal agency action that imposes obligations regarding state-jurisdictional facilities without statutory authority.

The FPA does not provide FERC with unlimited discretion to impose planning obligations and cost allocation rules that encroach on state jurisdiction. While FERC has authority over regional transmission planning, it lacks express statutory authorization to mandate long-term planning requirements that could alter state-jurisdictional transmission policies or reallocate cost responsibilities without state consent.

Co-located load and the questions of utility system planning responsibility and cost allocation

Another set of proceedings concerns co-located load, where large facilities — such as data centers — are sited next to power plants and draw energy directly from them, bypassing the transmission grid. The key issue is whether these loads should pay a share of transmission and distribution costs. States have traditionally determined retail rate design and cost allocation.

The FPA does not authorize FERC to regulate retail service structures, interfere with state-jurisdictional retail rate design or dictate how states oversee integrated resource planning. If FERC were to assert authority over these matters, it would risk exceeding its statutory role in wholesale market oversight and cost allocation.

New industrywide local electricity service planning complaint: A shot in the dark

A new complaint filed at FERC by industry trade groups seeks a ruling that all transmission facilities at or above 100 kV must be classified as regional and subject to FERC’s jurisdiction. The complaint disregards well-established distinctions between local and regional transmission planning and proposes introducing independent third-party planners into local planning — an authority FERC lacks under the FPA.

States have regulated local transmission planning for decades. Their authority is settled. FERC has never imposed a universal voltage-based threshold for jurisdiction, and for good reason: Transmission classification depends on functional characteristics, not arbitrary voltage ratings. The complaint’s proposed approach disregards established FERC precedent, which evaluates whether a facility serves a local distribution function rather than relying on a rigid voltage cutoff.

Jurisdictional boundaries, regulatory integrity and the reach of executive authority

Regulatory authority is determined by statute, not agency preference or executive directive. The FPA’s jurisdictional lines define the respective roles of federal and state regulators, ensuring regulatory certainty and preserving the balance of power between state oversight and federal jurisdiction. Yet, as Samuel Taylor Coleridge has said, “Every reform, however necessary, will by weak minds be carried to an excess which will itself need reforming.”

Executive Order 14215 introduces a new layer of complexity by asserting executive control over legal interpretations across federal agencies. While FERC operates as an independent commission, the order raises concerns about whether external pressure may influence the agency’s decision-making, subtly shifting its approach to jurisdictional questions. If FERC’s interpretations are guided more by executive policy than statutory authority, the agency risks overextending its reach into areas reserved for state regulators — precisely the kind of regulatory excess that courts have historically restrained and may well require consultations with the White House under Executive Order 14215.

Like Glen Campbell’s Wichita lineman straining to hear through the static, courts will closely examine whether FERC's assertions of authority stay within the statutory framework or interfere with well-established state functions. The agency's independence and credibility depend on careful adherence to the law, not alignment with shifting executive priorities. The extent to which FERC remains within its delegated authority will shape the durability of its decisions. Actions firmly grounded in statutory text and judicial precedent reinforce regulatory stability, while those that stray beyond congressional intent invite rigorous scrutiny.

If FERC’s decisions ring hollow — untethered from statutory constraints — the signal will not carry far. Maintaining this balance is essential to preserving the integrity of federal-state regulatory cooperation in the energy sector.