The independence of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission could be significantly undermined by the Supreme Court's June 29 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which dramatically expanded the president's power to fire regulators without cause, according to former FERC commissioners appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents. The court's 6-3 decision found that the president's dismissal of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission was within his constitutional rights. Legal experts say the ruling applies to many other federal agencies, including FERC.

Former commissioners warned the decision could lead to a loss of quorum at FERC, leaving it unable to issue substantive orders that keep electricity markets functioning. The ruling may also cause the agency to lurch in different policy directions based on who wins the election every four years, with negative consequences for electricity markets and the broader economy. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the Senate confirms presidential appointments, but "neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work." In the dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the majority's reasoning a "radical theory of unitary executive power" that overturned the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent, which has been at "the center of this Court's separation-of-powers jurisprudence for nearly a century."

"Stripping those agencies of their independence will leave consumers exposed to the worst aspects of competitive markets without the protections of informed regulatory review," said Jon Wellinghoff, who was nominated to FERC by President George W. Bush in 2006 and named chair by President Obama. Neil Chatterjee, who was appointed FERC chair by President Trump twice, said FERC has been "a beacon of stability" invaluable for long-term investment decisions, but now worries the commission will "add uncertainty in the markets that is not in the country's long-term interests." Former Commissioner Allison Clements, also nominated by Trump, warned that "the ability to fire commissioners on a political whim risks an interminable loss of quorum required to keep the U.S. energy system running."

Former commissioners said the ruling's impact goes beyond immediate dismissals. Chatterjee explained 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," potentially leaving the commission unable to function. Richard Glick, nominated by Trump and appointed chair by Biden, warned that a party holding both the presidency and Senate majority might ignore the Federal Power Act's requirement of three commissioners from its party and two from the minority, eventually leading to a full slate of single-party commissioners. The decision could also diminish the quality of dissents vital to representing the full range of commission debates, because "an aggressive dissent could draw the attention of the White House and get a commissioner removed," Chatterjee said. Glick pointed to the EPA's recent history of lurching in opposite policy directions as presidents change, warning that "that could happen at FERC" with the result being "drastic regulatory uncertainty" for an economy that depends on stable energy policy.