Description: Challenge to Minnesota law that prohibits importation of power from large energy facilities that would contribute to statewide greenhouse gas emissions.
-
North Dakota v. Heydinger
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/22/2016 Not Available Minnesota said it would not pursue appeal. The Star Tribune reported that the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission had indicated that the State had decided not to pursue an appeal. The agencies stated that they "strongly disagree with the court’s ruling" but that "Minnesota has made significant gains with strong energy and environmental initiatives other than the specific provision of the law at issue in this case." 06/29/2016 Motion Download Motion for attorney fees filed. Plaintiffs Who Successfully Challenged Minnesota Low-Carbon Power Law Sought Attorney Fees for Appeal; Minnesota Said It Would Ask Supreme Court for Review. After the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Minnesota’s low-carbon power law was unlawful, North Dakota and its co-plaintiffs asked the Eighth Circuit to remand the case to the federal district court for the District of Minnesota for a determination on their motion for attorney fees. The district court previously concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and the plaintiffs argued that they were also entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred during the appeal. The plaintiffs asserted that they had obtained all the relief they sought and prevailed in a case that asserted a substantial claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (based on the dormant Commerce Clause), that they had succeeded on their Section 1983 claim (even though the Eighth Circuit “proffered additional rationales for affirmance” based on preemption and only one judge based affirmance on the dormant Commerce Clause), and that they had succeeded on other claims (i.e., the preemption claims) that arose from the same nucleus of operative fact. On July 22, Law360 reported that Minnesota had decide to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court rather than seeking en banc rehearing from the Eighth Circuit. 06/15/2016 Opinion Download Opinion issued. Eighth Circuit Panel Agreed That Minnesota Low-Carbon Power Law Was Unlawful But Disagreed as to Why. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s conclusion that Minnesota’s Next Generation Energy Act (NGEA) was unlawful. The NGEA barred importing energy from a “new large energy facility” outside Minnesota or entering into new long-term power purchase agreements, where such activities would contribute to statewide carbon dioxide emissions. Only one judge on the Eighth Circuit panel agreed with the district court conclusion that the statute constituted impermissible extraterritorial regulation under the dormant Commerce Clause. The other two judges concluded that the law was preempted by the Federal Power Act, with one of the two judges also concluding that the law conflicted with the Clean Air Act. A blog post about this decision appears here. -
North Dakota v. Heydinger
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/18/2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order Download Memorandum opinion and order issued enjoining enforcement of certain provisions of Next Generation Energy Act. The federal district court for the District of Minnesota enjoined the State of Minnesota from enforcing provisions of the Next Generation Energy Act (NGEA) that barred both importing energy from a “new large energy facility” outside Minnesota and entering into new long-term power purchase agreements, where such activities would contribute to statewide carbon dioxide emissions. The court ruled that these prohibitions were a “classic example” of extraterritorial regulation in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The court said that due to how the electricity industry operates, the law could require out-of-state entities to comply with Minnesota requirements and even seek regulatory approval from Minnesota before engaging in power transactions outside Minnesota. The court noted that “[u]nlike … tangible products, electricity cannot be shipped directly from Point A to Point B. MISO [the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the regional transmission organization of which Minnesota is a member] does not match buyers to sellers, and once electricity enters the grid, it is indistinguishable from the rest of the electricity in the grid. Therefore, a North Dakota generation-and-transmission cooperative cannot ensure that the coal-generated electricity that it injects into the MISO grid is used only to serve its North Dakota members and not its Minnesota members. Consequentially, in order to ensure compliance with [the NGEA provisions], out-of-state parties must conduct their out-of-state business according to Minnesota’s terms—i.e., engaging in no transactions involving power or capacity that would contribute to or increase Minnesota’s statewide power sector carbon dioxide emissions.” 02/15/2013 Order Download Order issued affirming magistrate judge order dated December 21, 2012. A federal district court affirmed a magistrate judge’s order denying several environmental groups’ motion to intervene in an action concerning a Minnesota law designed to reduce GHG emissions, holding that the groups could not intervene given that they could not demonstrate a sufficient interest in the outcome of the case and that generalized interests in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions were not enough to confer standing. 12/21/2012 Order Leave to intervene denied. In November 2012, several environmental groups moved to intervene in the case. The federal magistrate judge denied the motion, holding that the groups could not intervene given that they could not demonstrate a sufficient interest in the outcome of the case and that generalized interests in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions were not enough to confer standing. 09/30/2012 Memorandum Opinion and Order Download Memorandum opinion and order issued granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss. Minnesota moved for partial judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted the motion in part, holding that North Dakota had stated a prima facie claim that the Next Generation Energy Act was preempted by federal law. However, it dismissed claims alleging violations of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, holding that the law did not discriminate against North Dakota residents in obtaining employment in Minnesota. In addition, the court dismissed claims alleging violations of the Due Process Clause, holding that North Dakota failed to establish a constitutionally protected property interest. 11/02/2011 Complaint Download Complaint filed.