Federal Court Finds Maryland’s Long-Term Contract for Differences Unconstitutional

Oct 2, 2013

Reading Time : 3 min

The Court found that the contract for differences paid CPV for wholesale sales of capacity and energy, and thus set rates for wholesale sales of electricity, an exercise that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”).  The Court ruled that Congress had implicitly intended the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) to preempt state law with respect to ratemaking for such sales, and the Maryland PSC order directing the contract impermissibly invaded the field occupied exclusively by FERC. 

The Court acknowledged States’ authority to take a variety of actions with respect to generation facilities within their borders and the legitimate interest of States “in securing an adequate supply of electric energy for [their] residents in the present and in the future.”  Yet, the Court concluded that

[w]hile Maryland may retain traditional state authority to regulate the development, location, and type of power plants within its borders, the scope of Maryland’s power is necessarily limited by FERC’s exclusive authority to set wholesale energy and capacity prices under . . . the Supremacy Clause and the field preemption doctrine.  Based on this principle, Maryland cannot secure the development of a new power plant by regulating in such a manner as to intrude into the federal field of wholesale electric energy and capacity price-setting.”

The Court found that CPV would receive one price from bidding into and clearing the PJM centralized-capacity market (called the Reliability Pricing Model or “RPM”) and another price for these same sales under the contract for differences.  Thus, the Court found that the Maryland PSC was attempting to set the price for these wholesale sales instead of the FERC-approved market.  The Court made this finding despite CPV having bid into and cleared RPM under market mitigation rules designed to prevent state-subsidized generation from artificially depressing market prices. 

The Plaintiffs also alleged that the Maryland PSC order (1) violated the Supremacy Clause by virtue of conflict preemption, (2) violated the dormant Commerce Clause, and (3) deprived them of their federal statutory rights protected by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  The Court ruled that, having found field preemption, it did not need to reach the conflict preemption arguments. The Court rejected the dormant Commerce Clause claim, finding

The PSC regulated to finance indirectly the development and operation of a generation facility [], which will participate in the wholesale energy and capacity markets in the PJM region like any other generation facility.  Other than increasing the available supply of electric energy and capacity in the PJM region by adding a new generation facility [], the Order does not affect the ability of the other market participants to sell energy and capacity in the PJM Markets.  The Court does not find evidence that the addition of a state sponsored market participant [] imposes a burden, let alone an undue burden, on interstate commerce. 

Finally, the Court summarily rejected the Section 1983 claim on the grounds that the Supremacy Clause is not a source of substantive individual rights that could support and action brought pursuant to Section 1983. 

While the Court’s decision is clearly a win for the Plaintiffs, it is nonetheless a narrow ruling constrained by the facts of the case.  For example, the Plaintiffs did not contend that an act of the Maryland General Assembly or Maryland PSC related to the siting or building of a physical generation facility, the direct financing of the construction of a generating facility, or the encouragement of or limitations on certain types of generating facilities within its borders (such as environmental-related regulation) would be field-preempted by the FPA.  Those actions would have a similar price-depressing effect on RPM, and would need to be litigated in order to determine whether preempted under the Supremacy Clause. 

CPV had previously told the Maryland PSC that it needed a long-term contract to finance the plant.  In the end, the fact that CPV has already offered the plant into RPM and cleared the market may justify CPV’s construction of the plant despite the absence of such a contract. 


1 The utilities were Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., Potomac Electric Power Co., and Delmarva Power & Light Co. 

 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

March 10, 2025

On March 5, 2025, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) approved Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC’s (GPLNG) request to extend a deadline to begin exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) from its terminal facility currently under construction in Sabine Pass, Texas for 18 months, from September 30, 2025, to March 31, 2027 (the Order). The Order amends GPLNG’s two existing long-term orders authorizing the export of domestically produced LNG to countries with which the United States does and does not have free trade agreements (FTA).1  The Order does not amend the authorizations’ end date, which remains December 31, 2050. Under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), the DOE may authorize exports to non-FTA countries following completion of a “public interest” review, whereas exports to FTA countries are deemed to be in the public interest and the DOE is directed to issue authorizations without modification or delay.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

March 4, 2025

Join projects & energy transition partner Shariff Barakat at Infocast’s Solar & Wind, where he will moderate the “Tax Equity Market Dynamics” panel.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 13, 2025

Oil & gas companies continue to identify and capitalize on opportunities related to the deployment of new energy technologies, with their approaches broadly maturing and coalescing around maximizing synergies, leveraging available subsidies and responding to regulatory drivers.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 11, 2025

On January 30, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) approved a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Office of Enforcement (OE) and Stronghold Digital Mining Inc. (Stronghold) resolving an investigation into whether Stronghold had violated the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) tariff and Commission regulations by limiting the quantity of energy made available to the market to serve a co-located Bitcoin mining operation.1 This order appears to be the first instance of a public enforcement action involving co-located load and generation and comes at a time when both FERC and market operators2 are scrutinizing the treatment of co-located load due to the rapid increase in demand associated with data center development.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 5, 2025

2024 was about post-consolidation deal flow and a steady uptick in activity across the oil & gas market. This year, mergers & acquisitions (M&A) activity looks set to take on a different tone as major consolidation plays bed down.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

January 30, 2025

The oil & gas industry is experiencing a capital resurgence, driven by stabilizing interest rates and renewed attention from institutional investors. Private equity is leading the charge with private credit filling the void in traditional energy finance and hybrid capital instruments gaining in popularity. Family offices are also playing a crucial role, providing long-term, flexible investments.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

January 23, 2025

Under a second Trump presidency, the U.S. is expected to consider reversal of many of the Biden administration’s climate and environmental policies, in addition to a markedly different approach to trade policy and oil & gas regulation. This includes expanding oil & gas development on public lands and offshore, lifting the pause on liquified natural gas (LNG) exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries and repealing the methane fee.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

January 15, 2025

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin’s recently presented webinar, “Drilling Down: What Oil & Gas Companies Can Expect from Federal Agencies During Trump’s Second Administration.”

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.