Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Decision Date27 October 1998
Docket NumberNo. 97-5470,97-5470
Parties1998-2 Trade Cases P 72,355, Util. L. Rep. P 14,247 CROSSROADS COGENERATION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. ORANGE & ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

William Harla (Argued), DeCotiis, FitzPatrick & Gluck, Teaneck, NJ, for Appellant.

Glen R. Stuart (Argued), Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee.

Before: STAPLETON and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARTZ, * District Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:

This appeal is from the dismissal of all counts of a complaint filed by Crossroads Cogeneration Corporation ("Crossroads") against Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. ("O & R"). The district court dismissed Crossroads' breach of contract claim and related claims on the ground that they were barred by issue and claim preclusion, and dismissed Crossroads' antitrust claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We will reverse in part and affirm in part.

I.

Crossroads, a Delaware company, is an independent producer of electric power that owns and operates a cogeneration facility in Mahwah, New Jersey, its principal place of business. O & R is a New York corporation that operates as a public utility in four counties in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. In each county in which O & R operates, it is virtually the sole retail provider of electric power to residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Most of the energy O & R provides to customers is purchased from relatively small, independent generators of energy, such as Crossroads. This dispute arises from a power purchase agreement governing the sale to O & R of electricity generated by Crossroads. Before examining the dispute in any detail, however, it is first necessary to review the regulatory context of the agreement.

A.

Under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 791a et seq., the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") is responsible for regulating "public utilities" that offer electric power in interstate commerce. In the midst of a national energy crisis in 1978, Congress modified the Federal Power Act by enacting the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act ("PURPA"), 16 U.S.C. § 823a et seq. Congress' overall strategy was to "control power generation costs and ensure long-term economic growth by reducing the nation's reliance on oil and gas and increasing the use of more abundant, domestically produced fuels." Freehold Cogeneration Associates, L.P. v. Board of Regulatory Comm'rs of New Jersey, 44 F.3d 1178, 1182 (3d Cir.1995). One chosen means to this broad end was to encourage the development of cogeneration facilities, which produce both electric and thermal energy from a single fuel source.

Developing a market for cogeneration facilities required overcoming both the reluctance of traditional electric utilities to purchase power from independent providers and the financial burden of state and federal regulation on nontraditional facilities. See FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 750-51, 102 S.Ct. 2126, 72 L.Ed.2d 532 (1982). To address the first barrier, PURPA creates incentives by requiring FERC to prescribe "such rules as it determines necessary to encourage cogeneration and small power production," including rules to "require electric utilities to offer to ... purchase electric energy from [cogeneration] facilities." 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3(a). At the same time, to address the burden of regulation, PURPA requires FERC to prescribe rules to exempt small production facilities from many provisions of the Federal Power Act and "from State laws and regulations respecting the rates, or respecting the financial or organizational regulation, of electric utilities." 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3(e).

Acting pursuant to its authority under PURPA, FERC has promulgated regulations governing transactions between cogeneration facilities and electric utilities, including provisions requiring electric utilities to purchase energy from qualifying facilities ("QFs") at a rate up to the utility's full avoided cost. 1 In addition, FERC has also promulgated regulations exempting QFs from state regulatory requirements. Those regulations provide, in relevant part, that:

Any qualifying facility shall be exempted ... from State law or regulation respecting:

(i) The rates of electric utilities; and

(ii) The financial and organizational regulation of electric utilities.

18 C.F.R. § 292.602(c)(1).

Despite the existence of FERC regulations governing QFs and the exemption of QFs from certain federal and state regulations applicable to traditional electric utilities, state regulatory authorities are required to implement FERC rules. See 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3(f). Thus state agencies are actively involved in the formation and performance of contracts between traditional utilities and QFs; in particular, state authorities must review and approve power purchase agreements before they take effect.

B.

In October 1987, O & R entered into a contract with a QF for the purchase of electric energy for a period of twenty years. In 1990, Crossroads purchased the QF's facility and it assigned the agreement to Crossroads. 2 Pursuant to FERC regulations, the agreement required approval by the New York Public Service Commission ("NYPSC"), the state agency responsible for regulating electric utilities. After several changes were made at the NYPSC's request, the required approval was granted in December of 1988. The agreement provided that Crossroads' predecessor would supply energy to O & R from a cogeneration facility that "initially will be designed to generate nominally 3.3 MW of capacity and to generate approximately 26,300 MWH of electric energy annually." App. at 65. The facility was initially constructed with three combustion engines, each of which had a generating capacity of approximately 1.1 MW. However, the agreement anticipated that the plant might eventually grow in size, and the parties accordingly agreed upon the disposition of any capacity in excess of 3.3 MW:

[Crossroads] shall deliver and sell to [O & R] and [O & R] shall accept and purchase from [Crossroads], subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement, all the capacity produced by the Plant, up to a maximum of 4 MW, and all energy associated with such capacity, net of that capacity and energy used from time to time to operate the Plant. No change in the amount of capacity committed hereunder shall be permitted without the written consent of [O & R] and [Crossroads]. [Crossroads] shall have the right to sell to third parties or make alternate dispositions of all the capacity produced by the Plant in excess of 4 MW and all energy associated with such excess capacity; provided, however, that [O & R] shall have a right of first refusal to purchase such excess capacity and energy for the price set forth herein.

App. at 70.

Thus, despite the 3.3 MW initial capacity, the agreement (1) requires O & R to purchase at the contract price all energy produced up to 4 MW; (2) reserves to O & R a right of first refusal in allocating any energy in excess of 4 MW; and (3) provides that Crossroads may sell on the open market any energy above 4 MW that O & R refuses.

This dispute arose in May 1996, when Crossroads constructed and began operating a new gas turbine at the facility, capable of generating 5 MW of power. O & R refused to pay the contract price for energy generated by the new turbine, while Crossroads claimed that O & R was obligated under the agreement to purchase all energy generated by the original or new equipment up to a capacity of 4 MW. O & R filed a petition with the NYPSC asking for a declaratory ruling that it was not obligated to "purchase energy produced by the [new] Turbine at the prices set forth in the Agreement." App. at 63. Though acknowledging that the terms of the agreement required it to purchase "all the capacity produced by the Plant up to a maximum of 4 MW," App. at 57, O & R argued that it would nonetheless be unfair to require it to purchase energy from the new turbine.

O & R's petition contended that the rates set forth in the agreement are substantially higher than the market would bear today, a result of policies in the 1980s that provided subsidies to cogeneration facilities. Since the plant's capacity was 3.3 before addition of the new turbine, O & R had not been paying for the full 4 MW of energy prior to addition of the new turbine. With the new turbine, Crossroads would easily fulfill the 4 MW that O & R was obliged to purchase under the agreement. Because O & R is locked into what it perceives is above-market rates, it charged that Crossroads was "seek[ing] to circumvent the terms and spirit of the Agreement by supplementing the availability of the Original Generators with the output from the Turbine." App. at 61. O & R estimated that it would be required to pay an additional $4.2 million to Crossroads for the additional energy over the life of the contract, concluding that "[r]equiring [its] ratepayers to subsidize Crossroads [was] simply inappropriate." App. at 61.

Crossroads opposed O & R's petition before the NYPSC. Citing a decision of this Circuit, Freehold Cogeneration Associates v. Board of Regulatory Comm'rs of New Jersey, 44 F.3d 1178 (3d Cir.1995), Crossroads argued that once a state utility commission approves the terms of a power purchase agreement, "any action ... to reconsider its approval" is preempted by PURPA. 44 F.3d at 1194. Crossroads also cited NYPSC precedent suggesting that the agency usually refused to get involved in contract disputes between utilities and their suppliers. Finally, Crossroads contended that the issue was more complex than O & R's petition made it out to be, and requested an opportunity to supplement the record should the Commission decide to exercise jurisdiction.

The NYPSC granted O & R's petition. The Commission determined that it had authority to review the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • Providence Pediatric Med. Daycare, Inc. v. Alaigh
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 30, 2015
    ...the rights at stake, the power of the agency, and the relative adequacy of agency procedures.’ " Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Util., Inc., 159 F.3d 129, 135 (3d Cir.1998) (quoting Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 109–10, 111 S.Ct. 2166, 115 L.E......
  • In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • August 27, 2009
    ...the nature of the anticompetitive conduct, and the elasticity of consumer demand." Id.; see also Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Util., Inc., 159 F.3d 129, 141 (3d Cir.1998). 16. According to Purepac, "Gabapentin monohydrate is not a component in Warner-Lambert's Neuronti......
  • Metro. Edison Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • September 16, 2014
    ...jurisdiction is accorded the same status for issue preclusion purposes as the merits of a dispute.” Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Utils., 159 F.3d 129, 135 (3d Cir.1998) ; see also Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111, 84 S.Ct. 242, 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963) (“[A] judgment is ......
  • Chawla v. Shell Oil Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • November 3, 1999
    ...63 F.3d at 1272, on the one hand, and a recent opinion by another panel in that Circuit in Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Utilities Inc., 159 F.3d 129, 141 (3rd Cir.1998), on the other hand. In Crossroads Cogeneration, the panel held that "to state a claim under the Robi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Price Discrimination Handbook
    • December 8, 2013
    ...1999), 29 Crest Auto Supplies v. Ero Mfg. Co., 360 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1966), 90 Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Utils., 159 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 1998), 22, 24 Table of Cases 291 D Danvers Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 543 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2008), 98 Dash v. Wayne, 700 F. Supp......
  • Collateral Estoppel and Prima Facie Effect
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook
    • January 1, 2016
    ...was of limited scope and could not have encompassed antitrust claims); Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc., 159 F.3d 129, 135-37 (3d Cir. 1998) (discussing preclusive effect of state agency determinations). Section 83(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments p......
  • Single Firm Conduct
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Energy Antitrust Handbook
    • January 1, 2017
    ...will not suffice.”). 204. Id . at 416-17. 205. 969 F. Supp. 907 (D.N.J. 1997), aff’d in pa rt , rev’d in part on other grounds , 159 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 1998). 206 . See Crossroads , 159 F.3d at 133-34. 112 Energy Antitrust Handbook concluded that there was no antitrust injury, as the QF was ......
  • Robinson-Patman Act
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Model Jury Instructions in Civil Antitrust Cases
    • December 8, 2016
    ...and merely offered to sell to a second potential purchaser at a higher price. Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Utils., 159 F.3d 129, 142 (3d Cir. 1998); Fusco v. Xerox Corp., 676 F.2d 332, 337 (8th Cir. 1982). In a competitive bidding situation, multiple offers to differen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT