PPL Energyplus, LLC v. Nazarian
| Decision Date | 02 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | 13–2424.,Nos. 13–2419,s. 13–2419 |
| Citation | 753 F.3d 467 |
| Parties | PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC; PPL Brunner Island, LLC; PPL Holtwood, LLC; PPL Martins Creek, LLC; PPL Montour, LLC; PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Lower Mount Bethel Energy, LLC; PPL New Jersey Solar, LLC; PPL New Jersey Biogas, LLC; PPL Renewable Energy, LLC; PSEG Power LLC; Essential Power, LLC, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Douglas R.M. NAZARIAN; Harold Williams; Lawrence Brenner; Kelly Speakes–Backman; Kevin Hughes, Defendants–Appellants, and CPV Maryland, LLC, Defendant. American Public Power Association; National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; NRG Energy Inc.; Maryland Office of People's Counsel; Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority; Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; George Jepsen, Attorney General for the State of Connecticut; Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel; New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners, Inc.; Maine Public Utilities Commission; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Vermont Public Service Board; Vermont Department of Public Service; California Public Utilities Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of New York (NYPSC); Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia; Delaware Public Service Commission; New Jersey Board of Public Utilities; New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel; Maryland Energy Administration; American Wind Energy Association; The Mid–Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition, Amici Supporting Appellants, PJM Power Providers Group; Electric Power Supply Association; Edison Electric Institute, Amici Supporting Appellees. PPL EnergyPlus, LLC; PPL Brunner Island, LLC; PPL Holtwood, LLC; PPL Martins Creek, LLC; PPL Montour, LLC; PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Lower Mount Bethel Energy, LLC; PPL New Jersey Solar, LLC; PPL New Jersey Biogas, LLC; PPL Renewable Energy, LLC; PSEG Power LLC; Essential Power, LLC, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. CPV Maryland, LLC, Defendant–Appellant, and Douglas R.M. Nazarian; Harold Williams; Lawrence Brenner; Kelly Speakes–Backman; Kevin Hughes, Defendants. American Public Power Association; National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; NRG Energy Inc.; Maryland Office of People's Counsel; Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority; Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; George Jepsen, Attorney General for the State of Connecticut; Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel; New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners, Inc.; Maine Public Utilities Commission; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Vermont Public Service Board; Vermont Department of Public Service; California Public Utilities Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of New York (NYPSC); Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia; Delaware Public Service Commission; New Jersey Board of Public Utilities; New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel; Maryland Energy Administration; American Wind Energy Association; The Mid–Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition, Amici Supporting Appellant, PJM Power Providers Group; Electric Power Supply Association; Edison Electric Institute, Amici Supporting Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ARGUED:Scott H. Strauss, Spiegel & McDiarmid, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Clifton Scott Elgarten, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Paul D. Clement, Bancroft, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: H. Robert Erwin, Ransom E. Davis, Baltimore, Maryland; Peter J. Hopkins, Jeffrey A. Schwarz, Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants Douglas R.M. Nazarian, Harold Williams, Lawrence Brenner, Kelly Speakes–Backman, and Kevin Hughes. Larry F. Eisenstat, Richard Lehfeldt, Jennifer N. Waters, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant CPV Maryland, LLC. Erin E. Murphy, Candice Chiu, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Amici. Jesse A. Dillon, PPL Services Corp., Allentown, Pennsylvania; David L. Meyer, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees PPL EnergyPlus, LLC, PPL Brunner Island, LLC, PPL Holtwood, LLC, PPL Martins Creek, LLC, PPL Montour, LLC, PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Lower Mount Bethel Energy, LLC, PPL New Jersey Solar, LLC, PPL New Jersey Biogas, LLC, and PPL Renewable Energy, LLC. Tamara Linde, Vice President–Regulatory, Vaughn L. McKoy, General State Regulatory Counsel, PSEG Services Corp., Newark, New Jersey; Shannen W. Coffin, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee PSEG Power, LLC. David Musselman, Essential Power, LLC, Princeton, New Jersey, for Appellee Essential Power, LLC. Susan N. Kelly, Senior Vice President of Policy Analysis and General Counsel, Delia D. Patterson, Assistant General Counsel, American Public Power Association, Washington, D.C.; Jay A. Morrison, Vice President, Regulatory Issues, Pamela M. Silberstein, Associate Director, Power Supply Issues, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Arlington, Virginia, for Amici American Public Power Association and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Abraham Silverman, Cortney Madea, NRG Energy, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey; Jeffrey A. Lamken, Martin V. Totaro, Washington, D.C., Kaitlin R. O'Donnell, MoloLamken LLP, New York, New York, for Amicus NRG Energy Inc. Paula M. Carmody, William F. Fields, Maryland Office of People's Counsel, Baltimore, Maryland, for Amicus Maryland Office of People's Counsel. Randall L. Speck, Jeffrey A. Fuisz, Kimberly B. Frank, Susanna Y. Chu, Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici. Clare E. Kindall, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, New Britain, Connecticut, for Amicus Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority. Robert D. Snook, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, New Britain, Connecticut, for Amicus Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. John S. Wright, Assistant Attorney General, Michael C. Wertheimer, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, New Britain, Connecticut, for Amicus George Jepsen, Attorney General for the State of Connecticut. Elin Swanson Katz, Joseph A. Rosenthal, Connecticut Office Of Consumer Counsel, New Britain, Connecticut, for Amicus Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel. Sarah Hofmann, Executive Director, New England Conference Of Public Utilities Commissioners, Inc., Montpelier, Vermont, for Amicus New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners, Inc. Lisa Fink, State of Maine Public Utilities Commission, Augusta, Maine, for Amicus Maine Public Utilities Commission. Amy K. D'Alessandro, Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission, Warwick, Rhode Island, for Amicus Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission. June Tierney, General Counsel, Vermont Public Service Board, Montpelier, Vermont, for Amicus Vermont Public Service Board. Edward McNamara, Regional Policy Director, Vermont Department of Public Service, Montpelier, Vermont, for Amicus Vermont Department of Public Service. Frank Lindh, Candace Morey, California Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco,California, for Amicus California Public Utilities Commission. Kimberly A. Harriman, Acting General Counsel, Jonathan D. Feinberg, Solicitor, Alan Michaels, Assistant Counsel, Public Service Commission of the State of New York, Albany, New York, for Amicus Public Service Commission of the State of New York. Richard A. Beverly, Richard S. Herskovitz, Public Service Commission of The District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia. Kathleen Makowski, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Public Service Commission, Dover, Delaware, for Amicus Delaware Public Service Commission. John Jay Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, Richard F. Engel, Deputy Attorney General, Lisa J. Morelli, Deputy Attorney General, Alex Moreau, Deputy Attorney General, Jennifer S. Hsia, Deputy Attorney General, New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Trenton, New Jersey, for Amicus New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. Stefanie A. Brand, Director, New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, Trenton, New Jersey, for Amicus New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel. Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General, Brent A. Bolea, Assistant Attorney General, Steven M. Talson, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Energy Administration, Annapolis, Maryland, for Amicus Maryland Energy Administration. Gene Grace, American Wind Energy Association, Washington, D.C., for Amici American Wind Energy Association and The Mid–Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition. Glen Thomas, PJM Power Providers Group, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; John Lee Shepherd, Jr., Karis Anne Gong, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus PJM Power Providers Group. David G. Tewksbury, Stephanie S. Lim, Ashley C. Parrish, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus The Electric Power Supply Association. Edward H. Comer, Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Henri D. Bartholomot, Associate General Counsel, Regulatory and Litigation, Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Edison Electric Institute.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge WILKINSON wrote the opinion, in which Judge KEENAN and Judge DIAZ joined.
At issue is a Maryland program to subsidize the participation of a new power plant in the federal wholesale energy market. Appellees are energy firms that compete with this new plant in interstate commerce. They contend that the Maryland scheme is preempted under the Federal Power Act's authorizing provisions, which grant exclusive authority over interstate rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The district court agreed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
For much of the 20th century, the energy market was dominated by vertically integrated firms that produced, transmitted, and delivered power to end-use customers. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. Wender
...to a finding of field preemption; instead, it is the mere fact of intrusion that offends the Supremacy Clause." PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Nazarian, 753 F.3d 467, 474 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing N. Nat. Gas Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 372 U.S. 84, 97-98, 83 S.Ct. 646, 9 L.Ed.2d 601 (1963) ). The pre......
-
Maryland v. Exxon Mobil Corp., CIVIL ACTION NO. ELH-18-0459
...to be informed by examining the federal statute as a whole and identifying its purpose and intended effects." PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Nazarian , 753 F.3d 467, 478 (4th Cir. 2014), aff'd sub nom. Hughes v. Talen Energy Mktg., LLC , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1288, 194 L.Ed.2d 414 (2016). For ex......
-
Va. Uranium, Inc. v. McAuliffe, Case No.: 4:15-cv-00031
...188 L.Ed.2d 375 (2014). “Statutory text and structure provide the most reliable guideposts in this inquiry.” PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Nazarian , 753 F.3d 467, 474 (4th Cir.2014), cert. granted sub nom. CPV Md., LLC v. PPL EnergyPlus, LLC , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 356, 193 L.Ed.2d 288 (2015),......
-
Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. (In re Firstenergy Solutions Corp.)
...as a comprehensive scheme of federal regulation of all wholesales of [energy] in interstate commerce." PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Nazarian , 753 F.3d 467, 475 (4th Cir. 2014) (alterations in original) (quoting Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co. , 485 U.S. 293, 300, 108 S.Ct. 1145, 99 L.Ed.2d 316 ......
-
The Fate Of Demand Response Hangs In The Balance
...asserted that in PJM, in 2013/2014 alone, demand response saved $11.8 million. Id. at 26 (citing PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Nazarian, 753 F.3d 467 (4th Cir. 2014), petition for cert. filed, No. 14-614, No. 14-623 (Nov. 25 & 26, 2014); PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Solomon, 766 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 20......
-
What Does U.S. Supreme Court Decision Upholding FERC's Authority Over Demand Response Mean For The Future Of FERC's Jurisdiction?
...Supply Ass'n, No. 14-840 (Jan. 25, 2016). 2 No. 14-614; No. 14-623. The underlying case on appeal is PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Nazarian, 753 F.3d 467 (4th Cir. 3 No. 14-634; No. 14-694. The underlying case on appeal is PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Solomon, 766 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2014). If you have a......
-
Minimizing Constitutional Risk in State Energy Policy: A Survey of the State of the Law
...37. See PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Nazarian, 974 F. Supp. 2d 790 (D. Md. 2013); af’d on other grounds , PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Nazarian, 753 F.3d 467 (4th Cir. 2014); PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Hanna, 977 F. Supp. 2d 372 (D.N.J. 2013). 38. Nazarian , 974 F. Supp. 2d at 851. 39. PPL EnergyPlus LLC ,......
-
Legal After-Shocks on the Energy Seismograph: Judicial Prohibition of Recent State Regulation and Promotion of Power
...843 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1099, 42 ELR 20013 (E.D. Cal. 2011); PPL Energy-plus, LLC v. Nazarian, 974 F. Supp. 2d 790 (D. Md. 2013), af’d , 753 F.3d 467 (4th Cir. 2014); PPL Energyplus, LLC v. Hanna, 977 F. Supp. 2d 372 (D.N.J. 2013), af’d , PPL Energyplus, LLC v. Solomon, 766 F.3d 241, 44 ELR 2......
-
Legal Challenges for 'Leaving It in the Ground': Touchstone Developments and Holdings
...amount, in return for CPV locating in Maryland. 132 125. PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Nazarian, 974 F. Supp. 2d 790 (D. Md. 2013), af’d , 753 F.3d 467 (4th Cir. 2014). 126. Electric Choice, Map of Deregulated Energy States and Markets (Updated 2017) , https://www.electricchoice.com/map-deregulate......