Supreme Court rules on state energy incentives

The U.S. Supreme Court has released its ruling on a case affecting how states may provide incentives for electric power generation.  In Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, the Court upheld a lower court's ruling invalidating a Maryland program to subsidize construction of new power plants.  The ruling provides important insight into how the Court views the boundary between federal and state jurisdiction over energy matters.

The Supreme Court of the United States.

The Hughes case involved a new Maryland program to encourage in-state generation capacity, and its relationship to federally blessed capacity market.  Under the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over wholesale sales of electricity in the interstate market, while States regulate retail electricity sales. 

For years,  Mid-Atlantic regional grid operator PJM Interconnection has held capacity auctions to identify need for new generation and compensate generators for development.  PJM's auctions have been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act.  But due to concern that the PJM auction was failing to encourage development of sufficient new in-state generation, Maryland enacted its own regulatory program.  Under that state program, Maryland held a competitive process to select a developer for a new power plant, and required load-serving entities to enter into a 20-year pricing contract (called a "contract for differences") with the developer.  The developer would still sell its capacity to PJM, but would receive extra money under the state program to make up the difference between the PJM market price and the contract price.

But incumbent generators challenged the new Maryland program; a federal district court issued a declaratory judgment holding that Maryland's program improperly sets the rate the developer receives for interstate wholesale capacity sales to PJM.  On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that Maryland's program was preempted because it impermissibly conflicts with FERC policies.  The case then came to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supreme Court's April 19, 2016 decision affirms the lower courts' rulings.  The Court agreed with the Fourth Circuit's judgment "that Maryland's program sets an interstate wholesale rate, contravening the FPA's division of authority between state and federal regulators."  In the majority opinion's words, "States may not seek to achieve ends, however legitimate, through regulatory means that intrude on FERC's authority over interstate wholesale rates, as Maryland has done here."

The Hughes ruling sheds light on how the Court might view other state programs to incentivize new or clean generation.  That said, the Court emphasized that its holding in Hughes is limited -- that it rejected Maryland's program "only because it disregards an interstate wholesale rate required by FERC."  The Court explicitly said it would not address "the permissibility of various other measures States might employ to encourage development of new or clean generation," such as tax incentives, land grants, direct subsidies, construction of state-owned generation facilities, or re-regulation of the energy sector.

The majority opinion concludes with a reminder that "[s]o long as a State does not condition payment of funds on capacity clearing the auction, the State's program would not suffer from the fatal defect that renders Maryland's program unacceptable."  This suggests one potential path for permissible state incentives for electric power generation.

US Supreme Court stays Clean Power Plan

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued an order staying the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan regulations limiting carbon emissions from electric power plants.  As a result, the rule's effect is frozen until legal challenges to the rule are resolved in federal court.

The Supreme Court of the United States.

EPA's final Clean Power Plan rule establishes emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units.  Developed by EPA pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 111(d), the regulation prescribes carbon reductions for states.

While state-level emissions reductions are federally prescribed, the rule places states in the role of developing their own compliance plans for how to reach the required emissions reductions.  The rule was published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015, as Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662.  It gave states until September 6, 2016 to file a final plan, or an initial plan with a request for an extension, for EPA review.

If implemented, the EPA says the Clean Power Plan will reduce carbon emissions from power plants by 32% below 2005 levels, or about 870 million short tons.  EPA estimates the regulation could yield public health and climate benefits worth $54 billion in 2030 alone.  As states cut back on using carbon-intensive fuels such as coal and oil, EPA projects that renewable energy will grow, with utility-scale wind and solar expected to double by 2030 under the Clean Power Plan compared to 2013 levels.

But numerous lawsuits have been filed challenging the rule, along with petitions to stay or freeze its effectiveness pending judicial review.  Last month, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions for stay from parties including states, utilities and trade groups such as the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

Parties then filed petitions for stay to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Under a 2012 Supreme Court precedent, Maryland v. King, a party seeking a stay must demonstrate (1) a "reasonable probability" that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari or agree to hear the case, (2) a "fair prospect" that the Court will reverse the decision below, and (3) a "likelihood that irreparable harm [will] result from the denial of a stay."  This is a relatively high burden.

Today a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to stay the Clean Power Plan rule, by order entered in the West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al. case and others consolidated into the West Virginia case.  In the Court's words:

The Environmental Protection Agency’s "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662 (October 23, 2015), is stayed pending disposition of the applicant’s petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and disposition of the applicant’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.

The order notes that Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the request to freeze the rule's effect.  This note reveals a 5-4 decision to issue the stay, with Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito in the majority as supporting the stay.

With the Clean Power Plan's effect stayed, litigation over the rule will now proceed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  The 27 states participating in challenges to the rule are likely cheering.  Those include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.  Meanwhile, the 18 states who filed in support of the EPA, along with those states who have started preparing compliance plans for the regulation, now find themselves on less certain footing.  So too do electric power generators, and others interested in energy markets.  If controversy persists, whatever decision the circuit court issues is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

US Supreme Court upholds wholesale demand response

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued an opinion upholding regional electricity grid operators' ability to operate wholesale demand response programs under federal authority.  In that opinion, FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn., the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision invalidating the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulation of electricity demand response.   While further evolution of demand response will continue, the Supreme Court's 6-to-2 ruling puts regional wholesale demand response programs back on surer footing after the uncertainty injected by the lower court's previous ruling.  A grid portfolio including some degree of demand response can provide beneficial environmental, reliability, and economic effects compared to pure generation.  It appears relatively more likely that existing regional wholesale demand response programs may continue to operate under federal authority, and relatively less likely that a new state-driven demand response paradigm will arise.

As described in the Supreme Court opinion, wholesale electricity demand response programs pay consumers for commitments to reduce their consumption of electricity during peak demand periods or other times of scarcity or high prices.  For about 15 years, wholesale market operators have increasingly adopted wholesale demand response programs, with the blessing of both Congress and the FERC.  In 2011, the FERC issued its Order No. 745, establishing a rule requiring market operators to pay the same price to cost-effective demand response providers for conserving energy as to generators for producing it. 

But that order was challenged by an association of generators, among others.  In May 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Electric Power Supply Association v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission vacating Order No. 745.  Its chief logic was that FERC lacked authority to issue the order on jurisdictional grounds -- because in the lower court's view, Order No. 745 directly regulates the retail electric market.  Under the Federal Power Act, FERC is authorized to regulate "the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce," but cannot regulate "any other sale" (i.e. any retail sale) of electricity.

But today's Supreme Court ruling held that the Federal Power Act does provide FERC with the authority to regulate wholesale market operators' compensation of demand response bids.  The Court divided its analysis of this point in three parts.

First, the Supreme Court held that the practices at issue directly affect wholesale rates.  In the Court's words, "Wholesale demand response is all about reducing wholesale rates; so too the rules and practices that determine how those programs operate."

Second, the Supreme Court noted that FERC has not regulated retail sales.  "Here, every aspect of FERC's regulatory plan happens exclusively on the wholesale market and governs exclusively that market's rules.  The Commission's justifications for regulating demand response are likewise only about improving the wholesale market."  Putting the first and second sets of conclusions together, the Court found that the rule established by Order No. 745 complies with the plain terms of the Federal Power Act.

Third, the Court noted that adopting a contrary view would conflict with the core purposes of the Federal Power Act: "The FPA should not be read, against its clear terms, to halt a practice that so evidently enables FERC to fulfill its statutory duties of holding down prices and enhancing reliability in the wholesale energy market."

The Supreme Court also addressed an alternative holding by the D.C. Circuit Court that the Order No. 745 compensation scheme is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.  The Supreme Court noted that its "important but limited role" in reviewing FERC's decision "is to ensure that FERC engaged in reasoned decisionmaking."  Noting FERC's detailed explanation of its choice to compensate demand response providers at LMP, the same price paid to generators, and its lengthy responses to contrary views, the Supreme Court held that "FERC's serious and careful discussion of the issue satisfies the arbitrary and capricious standard."

Justice Kagan delivered the Court's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.   Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined, noting his belief that the Federal Power Act prohibits the FERC from regulating the demand response of "retail purchasers of power."  Justice Alito did not participate in the case.

The case now returns to the D.C. Circuit for "further proceedings consistent with this opinion." If Order No. 745 stands and FERC retains jurisdiction over the compensation paid to wholesale demand response market participants, it seems likely that existing regional wholesale demand response programs will continue to operate under federal authority.  As the Supreme Court found, these wholesale demand response programs can provide significant consumer savings when properly implemented.  How will demand response continue to evolve in the wake of FERC v. EPSA?  How does this decision reshape the boundary between wholesale (federal) and retail (state) jurisdictions?  What's next for demand response?

Supreme Court rules on EPA power plant regulations

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acted unreasonably in developing new regulations on hazardous air emissions from power plants without considering the cost impact of those regulations.  This ruling reinjects uncertainty into EPA's "Mercury and Air Toxics Standards" and other efforts to regulate power plant emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The federal Clean Air Act was designed to improve environmental quality and human health, among other goals.  It broadly allows federal regulation of air emissions of pollutants of various types and from various sources.

Because certain specific provisions in the Clean Air Act applied specifically to power plants, Congress placed a special restriction on EPA's regulation of power plant emissions under Section 7412(n)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act.  That provision allows EPA to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from power plants under Section 7412 only if it “finds such regulation is appropriate and necessary.”  In 2000, after a study, EPA concluded that regulating power plants under Section 7412 was "appropriate and necessary."  EPA reaffirmed this finding in 2012, and promulgated standards for emissions from power plants.

Along with those standards, EPA issued a “Regulatory Impact Analysis” estimating that the regulation would force power plants to bear costs of $9.6 billion per year.  That analysis also found that while benefits were hard to fully quantify, estimated benefits were worth $4 to $6 million per year.  Based on this analysis, compliance costs to power plants were thus between 1,600 and 2,400 times as great as the quantifiable benefits from reduced emissions of hazardous air pollutants.  At the same time, EPA argued that it did not have to consider costs in establishing its standards.

Following the issuance of these standards, 23 states sought review of EPA’s rule in the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a series of cases which were later consolidated.  The D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's refusal to consider costs in its decision to regulate, at which point petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. As my partner Jeff Talbert explains, in a 5-4 decision issued June 29, the Supreme Court held that EPA interpreted §7412(n)(1)(A) unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to regulate power plants.

So what does the Supreme Court's ruling mean for U.S. power plants?  Uncertainty -- but not necessarily freedom from regulation.  The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the D.C. Circuit for further consideration.  The D.C. Circuit could uphold the rule again (on new grounds, compliant with the Supreme Court's decision) -- or it could invalidate the rule based on the Supreme Court ruling.  If that happens, EPA will likely have to resume the process of developing new regulations for hazardous air emissions from power plants under Section 7412.