My excerpt from the article in comment #1.
The idea is to control demand rather than increase supply, which can be more expensive and less environmentally sound.
The code words "environmentally sound" implies man-made climate change, as we have been talking about here for years.
Those are the words of Richard Wolf, USA TODAY writer, not from the decision.
May I suggest some reading outside the lame stream media that is trying to claim an unrelated victory?
http://tdworld.com/distribution/supreme-court-rules-ferc-order-745-demand-response
http://www.energybiz.com/article/15/07/supreme-court-should-uphold-ferc-order-745