This study explores why state bureaucracies resist federal administrative orders, specifically focusing on Southern states.

The Puzzle: How do state agencies consistently challenge federal policies like those from FERC despite political constraints? The answer isn't simply partisan politics.

We introduce 'administrative sectionalism' – the idea that regional biases influence even supposedly impartial government bodies. Our analysis of 2010-2017 FERC-related litigation by state regulators reveals striking patterns: Southern states were 3.75x more likely to resist federal orders, suggesting deep-seated regional influences.

Our approach combines quantitative data with qualitative insights from case studies. We tracked specific resistance instances against federal utility policies during this period and examined their causes.

The findings suggest state agencies aren't always politically neutral – they can have preferences shaped by sectionalism. This has profound implications for understanding bureaucratic impartiality, especially in energy regulation.