Justia Utilities Law Opinion Summaries

Several electricity generators challenged a change in how they are compensated for producing reactive power, a component of electricity necessary for grid stability but not directly consumed by end users. For many years, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) provided generators with cost-based compensation for reactive power, in addition to market-based payments for real power. In 2022, MISO amended its tariff to eliminate separate compensation for reactive power, meaning neither transmission owners nor independent generators would receive payment for producing it within a standard range. This change was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and given immediate effect, despite objections from generators who argued they had made investments and entered contracts in reliance on the prior compensation structure.FERC approved MISO’s tariff amendment and denied requests for rehearing, concluding that the comparability standard justified the change and that generators’ reliance interests were either unsupported or outweighed by other considerations. FERC reasoned that generators should not have expected compensation for reactive power to continue indefinitely, especially since prior orders had made such compensation contingent on similar treatment for transmission owners. Generators petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review, arguing that FERC failed to adequately consider their short-term financial reliance on the previous compensation scheme.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that FERC acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to adequately consider the generators’ short-term reliance interests before allowing the tariff change to take immediate effect. The court did not address the substantive validity of the tariff amendment itself but found that FERC’s explanation was insufficient regarding the abrupt elimination of compensation. The court granted the petitions for review, set aside FERC’s orders, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Capital Power Corp. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

Several utility companies operating in California, including in Ventura County, challenged the property tax rates applied to their state-assessed utility property. They argued that the method used to calculate the debt service component of their property tax rate resulted in a higher rate than that applied to locally assessed, nonutility property (referred to as “common property”). The utilities claimed this disparity violated section 19 of article XIII of the California Constitution, which states that utility property “shall be subject to taxation to the same extent and in the same manner as other property.”The utilities filed suit in the Ventura County Superior Court against the County of Ventura and the California State Board of Equalization, seeking partial refunds for property taxes paid between 2018 and 2023. The County demurred, relying on recent appellate decisions that had rejected similar claims. The parties stipulated that the decision in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court was binding for purposes of this case, and the trial court sustained the demurrer, entering judgment in favor of the County and the Board.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that article XIII, section 19 does not require that utility property be taxed at the same or a comparable rate as nonutility property. Instead, the provision is an enabling clause that allows utility property to be subject to property taxation, but does not mandate rate equivalence. The court also found that the general uniformity requirement in article XIII, section 1 does not override the Legislature’s authority to implement reasonable distinctions in tax treatment for utility property. The judgment in favor of the County and the Board was affirmed. View "Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. County of Ventura" on Justia Law

Several companies that supply electricity generation services in Pennsylvania challenged a billing practice used by a regional electric distribution company (EDC), FirstEnergy. FirstEnergy, which is responsible for delivering electricity to customers, offered its own customers the option to pay for non-commodity goods and services—such as smart thermostats and surge protection—through their regular utility bills, a practice known as “on-bill billing.” However, FirstEnergy did not allow competing electric generation suppliers (EGSs) to use this billing method for their own non-commodity goods and services. The EGSs argued that this practice was unlawfully discriminatory under Section 1502 of the Public Utility Code and Section 2804(6) of the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, which prohibit unreasonable preferences or advantages in utility service.An administrative law judge initially found in favor of the EGSs, concluding that FirstEnergy’s practice gave it a significant competitive advantage and violated the anti-discrimination provisions. However, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) reversed this decision, reasoning that discrimination only occurs if the EDC provides the billing service to third parties but not to EGSs, which was not the case here. The PUC also determined that the relevant statutes did not require EDCs to offer on-bill billing for non-commodity goods and services to EGSs.The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the PUC’s decision, holding that the statutory provisions at issue did not obligate EDCs to provide on-bill billing for non-commodity goods and services to EGSs. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and agreed with the lower courts. The Court held that EDCs have no statutory duty to provide on-bill billing for non-commodity goods and services to EGSs, and that such billing does not constitute “service,” “electric services,” or “transmission and distribution service” under the relevant statutes. The Court affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court. View "Interstate Gas Supply, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission" on Justia Law

Several public utility companies challenged the property tax rates imposed by a California county, arguing that the “debt service component” of the county’s property tax rate for utility property was higher than the average rate for non-utility (common) property. The utilities claimed this violated article XIII, section 19 of the California Constitution, which states that utility property “shall be subject to taxation to the same extent and in the same manner as other property.” The utilities sought a partial refund of property taxes for several fiscal years, asserting that the constitutional provision required rate equality between utility and common property.The Superior Court of Riverside County allowed two local water districts to intervene, as they relied on property tax revenue for bond payments. The county demurred, relying on a recent decision from the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, which had rejected a similar claim by utilities in another county. The utilities conceded that this precedent was binding on the trial court but preserved their arguments for appeal. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. It considered the text, structure, and legislative history of article XIII, section 19, as well as recent appellate decisions from other districts. The court held that the constitutional provision does not require that utility and common property be taxed at the same rates. Instead, it authorizes local ad valorem taxation of utility property, replacing the prior system of state-level in-lieu taxation, but does not impose a rate limitation. The court also found that prior California Supreme Court precedent did not mandate rate equality. The judgment dismissing the utilities’ lawsuit was affirmed. View "Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

A dispute arose when Oklahoma Gas and Electric (OG&E) began providing retail electric service to a large cryogenic natural gas facility, the Chisolm Trail Plant, located in the certified territory of Oklahoma Electric Cooperative (OEC) in rural Grady County, Oklahoma. Under the Retail Energy Supplier Certified Territory Act (RESCTA), OEC holds exclusive rights to serve customers in this area, unless an exception applies. OG&E relied on the "Large Load" exception, which allows another supplier to serve a facility with an initial load of 1,000 kilowatts or more. To serve the Plant, OG&E connected to a third-party transmission line owned by Public Service Company of Oklahoma, rather than extending its own distribution system.After OG&E began service in May 2018, OEC filed an application with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission in August 2019, seeking to enjoin OG&E from serving the Plant, arguing that OG&E’s conduct violated RESCTA. The Commission, however, denied OEC’s request for injunctive relief, not by analyzing the statutory exception, but by finding that OEC’s claim was barred by the equitable defenses of laches, estoppel, and waiver, due to OEC’s delay in objecting and OG&E’s substantial investment in infrastructure.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and held that, under its recent decision in Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm’n (People’s), RESCTA’s Large Load exception does not permit a supplier to connect with third-party transmission lines to extend service into another supplier’s certified territory. However, because the holding in People’s applies only prospectively and not to existing service arrangements, OG&E is permitted to continue serving the Plant. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s order allowing OG&E to continue providing retail electric service to the customer in OEC’s territory. View "OKLAHOMA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION" on Justia Law

An electric utility company operating both within and outside Oregon was subject to central assessment for property tax purposes. For the 2020-21 tax year, the company and the Oregon Department of Revenue disagreed on the company’s overall value and the portion attributable to Oregon. The dispute centered on the methods used to determine real market value, specifically whether certain deductions and valuation models used by the company’s appraiser were consistent with the Department’s adopted standards. The Department relied on an administrative rule that incorporated the Western States Association of Tax Administrators (WSATA) Handbook, which prescribes valuation methods for centrally assessed properties.The Oregon Tax Court heard the case and considered expert testimony from both parties. The Department argued that the WSATA Handbook, as adopted by administrative rule, was binding and should control the valuation methods used. The company contended that the Tax Court, conducting a de novo review, was not bound by the Handbook. The Tax Court agreed with the company, holding that it was not required to defer to the Department’s rule and could determine real market value using other methods if it found them more accurate. The court ultimately adopted some of the company’s valuation approaches and set a value lower than the Department’s assessment.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case on appeal. It held that, absent a finding that the Department’s rule is invalid on its face or as applied, the rule has the force of law and must be given legal effect by the Tax Court. The Supreme Court found that the Tax Court erred by not treating the Department’s rule as binding unless its application would conflict with constitutional or statutory definitions of real market value. The Supreme Court reversed the Tax Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct legal standard. View "PacifiCorp v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

A condominium association in Southwest Washington, D.C., which owns a large complex of over 200 townhomes, challenged the way the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (D.C. Water) calculates a stormwater runoff fee known as the Clean Rivers Impervious Area Charge (CRIAC). The association is classified as a multi-family customer because its water is supplied through several master-metered service lines, rather than each townhome having an individual meter. This classification results in the CRIAC being calculated based on the total impervious surface area of the property, rather than using a tiered system that applies to individually metered residential properties. The association argued that this method, which ties the fee calculation to how the property is metered, is arbitrary and capricious, as the metering method does not affect the amount of stormwater runoff.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to D.C. Water. The court found that D.C. Water’s classification and billing methodology were reasonable and consistent with industry standards, relying on declarations from D.C. Water officials and legislative history. The court also rejected the association’s constitutional and equal protection claims, which were not pursued on appeal.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment on the constitutional claims, as those were not contested on appeal. However, the appellate court vacated the summary judgment on the claim that D.C. Water’s use of metering as a factor in CRIAC calculation was arbitrary and capricious. The court held that D.C. Water had not provided an adequate explanation for why metering should affect the fee, and remanded the case for further proceedings on that issue. View "Capitol Park IV Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority" on Justia Law

A company sought approval to construct electricity transmission lines in Pennsylvania as part of a larger project selected through a federally supervised regional planning process. The project was designed to alleviate regional congestion on the electricity grid, which would lower wholesale electricity costs in certain states but increase costs for some Pennsylvania consumers. The regional transmission organization (PJM), acting under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rules, selected the project using a benefit-cost methodology approved by FERC.The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) reviewed the company’s applications for siting and eminent domain authority. After an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge recommended denial, finding that the project was no longer needed due to decreased congestion and that the benefit-cost analysis used by PJM was deficient under Pennsylvania law. The PUC adopted this recommendation, denied the applications, and rescinded the company’s provisional certificate of public convenience. The company appealed to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, which affirmed the PUC’s decision. The company then pursued federal constitutional claims in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, reserving those issues in state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the PUC’s order was preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it posed an obstacle to federal objectives established by Congress and implemented by FERC—specifically, the regional planning and congestion-reduction process. The court found that the PUC’s independent “need” determination, which second-guessed PJM’s FERC-approved methodology, impermissibly conflicted with federal law. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment for the company and did not reach the dormant Commerce Clause issues. View "Transource Pennsylvania LLC v. DeFrank" on Justia Law

This case involves a challenge to a tariff adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) that significantly reduced the compensation utilities pay to customers who generate electricity through rooftop solar panels and export excess energy to the grid. Petitioners, including environmental organizations, argued that the Commission’s tariff was inconsistent with Public Utilities Code section 2827.1, which requires the Commission to ensure that compensation for customer-generators reflects the costs and benefits of renewable generation and supports sustainable growth, particularly among disadvantaged communities.The First Appellate District, Division Three, of the California Court of Appeal granted a writ of review and affirmed the Commission’s decision. In doing so, the Court of Appeal applied a highly deferential standard of review derived from the California Supreme Court’s decision in Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com., asking only whether the Commission’s interpretation of the statute bore a reasonable relation to statutory purposes and language. The court concluded that the Commission’s approach satisfied this standard and declined to engage in a more searching review of the statutory interpretation.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine whether the deferential Greyhound standard remains appropriate following legislative amendments to the Public Utilities Code. The Supreme Court held that, for Commission decisions not pertaining solely to water corporations, the deferential Greyhound standard no longer applies. Instead, courts must independently review the Commission’s statutory interpretations under the standards set forth in Public Utilities Code sections 1757 and 1757.1, which parallel the review of other administrative agencies. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this less deferential standard. View "Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com." on Justia Law

Three public interest organizations brought suit against a utility company that provides natural gas services in the District of Columbia, alleging that the company violated the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by making false and misleading statements about the environmental effects of its natural gas. The organizations claimed these statements appeared in customer bills, on the company’s website, and in other public documents. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief to address the alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices.The utility company responded by filing a special motion to dismiss under the District’s Anti-SLAPP Act, followed by a motion to dismiss under Superior Court Civil Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The company argued that the CPPA does not create a right of action against entities regulated by the Public Service Commission (PSC), citing D.C. Code § 28-3903(c)(2)(B) and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals’ decision in Gomez v. Independence Management of Delaware, Inc., 967 A.2d 1276 (D.C. 2009). The public interest organizations countered that the statutory limitation only applied to the Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection, not to private actors like themselves, and that subsequent amendments to the CPPA had rendered Gomez obsolete. The Superior Court granted the utility’s motion to dismiss, finding that Gomez remained controlling and that the CPPA’s exemptions for PSC-regulated entities had not been altered by later amendments.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal. The court held that, although the plain text of the CPPA does not expressly bar private suits against PSC-regulated entities, binding precedent from Gomez requires that the limitations in D.C. Code § 28-3903(c)(2) apply to private actions as well. Therefore, public interest organizations may not sue entities regulated by the PSC under the CPPA. View "Client Earth v. Washington Gas Light Company" on Justia Law