FERC has promoted voluntary formation of regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs) to eliminate the potential for undue discrimination in access to the electric grid; it has made key decisions expanding its own power in regional and interregional transmission planning and cost allocation through the landmark Order Nos.

[5] Since passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, FERC has imposed, through settlements and orders, more than $1 billion in civil penalties and disgorgement of unjust profits to address violations of its anti-market manipulation and other rules.

FERC also works closely with the United States Coast Guard to review the safety, security, and environmental impacts of proposed LNG terminals and associated shipping.

In 1954, the Supreme Court decision in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin extended FPC jurisdiction over all wellhead sales of natural gas in interstate commerce.

Enron charged one of its policy analysts to figure out how to make the most of the flawed rules put in place for the California electricity market.

In 2001, the George W. Bush administration sought to give the authority of eminent domain to FERC to circumvent state and local bureaucratic processes which often slowed the siting of new transmission projects.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 expanded FERC's authority to protect the reliability and cybersecurity of the bulk power system through the establishment and enforcement of mandatory standards, as well as greatly expanding FERC authority to impose civil penalties on entities that manipulate the electricity and natural gas markets.

[18][19] The Order was challenged in court by the state public utility commissions via the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), the American Public Power Association, and others who claimed that FERC overstepped its jurisdiction by regulating how local electric distribution and behind-the-meter facilities are administered, i.e., in not providing an opt out of wholesale market access for energy storage facilities located at the distribution level or behind-the-meter.

2222 on September 17, 2020, enabling distributed energy resources such as batteries and demand response to participate in regional wholesale electricity markets.

[25] The Supreme Court had ruled in 2016 in FERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n that the agency had the authority to regulate demand response transactions.

2023-A, an amendment clarifying certain provisions in the order, such as compliance filing requirements, the deadline for utilities to edit interconnect requests upon submission, the role of substation use in determining cost allocation, and the use of surety bonds in financing.

1920-A, an amendment to it passed unanimously the following November, allows state regulators even more opportunities to provide input on interstate grid projects, adds six months to the cost allocation negotiating process, and gives utilities more leeway to forecast additional needs scenarios.

[34] FERC has been subject to criticism and increasing activism by people from communities affected by its decisions approving pipeline and related projects.

[36] Some of the critics have disrupted several regular open meetings of the Commission[37] and staged a couple of week-long blockades of FERC's headquarters in Washington, D.C., to make their points.

In a July 1, 2014, decision, No Gas Pipeline v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.

It follows a careful administrative path to regulate only a portion of natural gas such as interstate pipelines and LNG import and export terminals.

"[36] In New Jersey, the FERC approval of the PennEast Pipeline was met with widespread criticism by environmental groups, which called the decision highly partisan.

"FERC has once again demonstrated its tremendous bias for, and partnership with, the pipeline industry," said Maya van Rossum, leader of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

Circuit Court of Appeals on July 10, 2018, rejected the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Maya Van Rossum's claim that FERC has an incentive to award pipeline certificates because it collects its operating expenses from regulated parties.

Circuit also rejected the Delaware Riverkeeper Network's challenge to FERC's use of tolling orders to meet its statutory deadlines for acting on rehearing applications.

Circuit has provided additional guidance concerning Commission procedures, stating that in one case FERC failed to consider the cumulative environmental impact of four projects that had been separately proposed by the same pipeline.

Circuit held that the projects were not financially independent and were "a single pipeline" that was "linear and physically interdependent," so the cumulative environmental impacts should have been considered concurrently.

Circuit sustained the commission's use of a separate environmental assessment when it reasoned that the projects in dispute were "unrelated" and did not depend on one another for their justification.

[49] FERC's leaders have stressed many times since the onset of the increased activism that the proper way to oppose a proposed new infrastructure project is by participating in the related proceeding by submitting comments and participating in public comment sessions, site visits and scoping meetings, since FERC decisions can be appealed up to the Supreme Court.

In contrast, prior to the formation of the NYISO in 1999 in New York, wholesale energy prices were set within a utility's state rate case proceeding.