Former FERC officials expressed concern that a Supreme Court ruling (Slaughter decision) expanding presidential power to fire regulators could weaken grid oversight and datacenter permitting.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's independence could face significant challenges from the Supreme Court's June 29 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which expanded the president's ability to dismiss regulators without cause. In its 6-3 ruling, the Court found that the president's removal of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter was constitutionally permissible—a decision that legal experts say applies broadly to many federal agencies, including FERC.

Former FERC commissioners appointed by presidents of both parties warn that the ruling threatens the agency's operational stability and effectiveness. The decision could force FERC to lose quorum, leaving it unable to issue substantive orders. It could also cause the agency to shift policy directions dramatically with each election cycle, with consequences for electricity markets and the broader economy.

"Independent regulatory agencies provide informed and expert oversight of the competitive companies engaged in providing consumer goods and services in our economy," said Jon Wellinghoff, nominated to FERC by President George W. Bush in 2006 and named chair by President Obama in 2009. "Stripping those agencies of their independence will leave consumers exposed to the worst aspects of competitive markets without the protections of informed regulatory review." Wellinghoff is now chief regulatory officer with distributed energy resource platform Voltus.

Neil Chatterjee, appointed FERC chair by President Trump in 2017 and 2018, echoed this concern: "FERC has been 'a beacon of stability' invaluable for long-term investment decisions. I now worry that FERC and other commissions will add uncertainty in the markets that is not in the country's long-term interests."

Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion justified the ruling by invoking presidential accountability, writing that without dismissal authority, "they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people." Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent emphasized that the decision contradicts the precedential 1935 ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, calling Roberts' opinion a "radical theory of unitary executive power" that departs from traditional separation-of-powers doctrine.

The concern runs deeper than immediate partisan considerations. Congress delegated to FERC, through the 1935 Federal Power Act, authority over wholesale electric rates and transmission rates—authority premised on the agency's independence. Without for-cause removal protections, FERC risks becoming a politically responsive body whose priorities flip every election cycle, exposing the entire economy to political rather than technical regulatory decisions.

Former commissioners Richard Glick (nominated by Trump, appointed chair by Biden in 2021) and Cheryl LaFleur (appointed chair by Obama in 2013 and by Trump in 2017) share these concerns. The ruling could erode the willingness of qualified individuals to serve as commissioners and disrupt FERC operations as Congress intended. Trump-nominated former Commissioner Allison Clements warned that the ability to fire commissioners on political grounds "risks an interminable loss of quorum required to keep the U.S. energy system running." Even the threat of quorum loss, she noted, "decreases the market certainty necessary to ensure critical investment."

Recruitment challenges could intensify the problem. Chatterjee noted that "especially late in a president's term, a FERC position might not be worth going through the colonoscopy that is a Senate confirmation process."

Glick raised another risk: a president holding Senate majority could ignore the Federal Power Act's requirement of three commissioners from its own party and two from the opposition. "That might lead to a president leaving seats open or, eventually, to a full slate of single-party commissioners."

The ruling may also suppress dissenting opinions vital to public debate. Chatterjee warned that "an aggressive dissent could draw the attention of the White House and get a commissioner removed," dimming commissioners' willingness to articulate alternative views. This could reduce the quantity and quality of dissents essential to representing the full range of commission debates.

Glick drew a cautionary parallel: the EPA's history under full presidential control demonstrates how cabinet-level agencies can lurch between opposite policy directions as administrations change. "That could happen at FERC, and the result could be drastic regulatory uncertainty." He also highlighted an apparent inconsistency in the Court's reasoning, noting that in another recent decision protecting Federal Reserve Bank Governor Lisa Cook's dismissal, "it could have thought more clearly about the economic impacts of institutions like FERC."