Justia Utilities Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute over the interpretation of the Efficient Use of Energy Act (EUEA) regarding whether it mandates the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (the Commission) to approve a full revenue decoupling mechanism for utilities. The Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) and other appellants argue that the EUEA requires full revenue decoupling, which allows utilities to recover approved revenue without regard to the quantity of energy sold. The Commission and several intervenors contend that the EUEA permits partial decoupling, which would only allow utilities to recover a portion of the approved revenue.The Commission initially reviewed the case through declaratory proceedings. The Hearing Examiner recommended that the EUEA does not mandate full revenue decoupling, suggesting instead that partial decoupling aligns with the statute's intent. The Commission adopted this recommendation, concluding that full decoupling would eliminate ordinary business risks for utilities and contradict the balancing of interests required by the EUEA and the Public Utility Act (PUA).The New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that Section 62-17-5(F)(2) of the EUEA clearly describes a full revenue decoupling mechanism. The Court found that the statute mandates the Commission to approve a rate adjustment mechanism ensuring that utilities recover approved revenue without regard to actual sales, which can only be achieved through full decoupling. The Court emphasized that the Commission must still ensure that any proposed mechanism results in just and reasonable rates, balancing the interests of the public, consumers, and investors. The Court vacated and annulled the Commission's order, deeming its interpretation of the statute unlawful and unreasonable. View "Coalition for Clean and Affordable Energy v. New Mexico Public Regulation Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves the Ohio Power Company’s application for an increase in electric distribution rates. The key issue is whether the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) allowed Ohio Power to recover costs for providing generation services through its distribution rates, which is prohibited by state law. Ohio Power’s distribution rates should only cover noncompetitive services, while generation services are competitive and should be billed separately.In the proceedings before the PUCO, Ohio Power submitted an analysis to identify costs associated with providing Standard Service Offer (SSO) and customer-choice program services, which were potentially being recovered through distribution rates. However, the PUCO found the analysis insufficient and continued to set the rates for the retail-reconciliation rider and the SSO-credit rider at zero, meaning no costs were reallocated. The PUCO’s staff and other parties, including Interstate Gas Supply (IGS), contested Ohio Power’s analysis, arguing it did not provide a detailed cost-of-service study differentiating costs between shopping and nonshopping customers.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the PUCO’s decision. The court held that the PUCO’s findings were supported by evidence and that the commission complied with the statutory requirements. The court found that IGS failed to demonstrate that the PUCO’s decision was unlawful or unreasonable. The court also noted that the PUCO provided sufficient detail in its orders to explain its decision-making process, thus complying with R.C. 4903.09. The court rejected IGS’s arguments that the PUCO ignored uncontroverted evidence and failed to address material issues, concluding that the PUCO’s orders were based on a thorough review of the evidence presented. View "In re Application of Ohio Power Co." on Justia Law

In February 2021, a severe cold snap hit the central United States, causing widespread power outages and fatalities. This event highlighted the need for improved grid reliability. The Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which manages the electrical grid in the region, proposed changes to its capacity market to address these issues. MISO's new system includes seasonal capacity markets, a revised method for calculating generator capacity, and new rules for generator outages. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved these changes.Entergy Arkansas, LLC, along with other companies, petitioned for review of FERC's approval, arguing that FERC acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Entergy challenged three main aspects: the new method for calculating generator capacity, the requirement for generator owners to replace capacity if offline for more than 31 days in a season, and the 120-day notice requirement for planned outages. Entergy was supported by several intervenors, including public utilities commissions and the East Texas Electric Cooperative.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that FERC had adequately explained its approval of MISO's changes. FERC's reliance on a study showing the new methodology's accuracy was deemed reasonable. The court also upheld the 31-day capacity replacement rule and the 120-day notice requirement, finding that FERC had provided sufficient rationale for these rules. The court denied Entergy's petitions for review and did not address issues raised solely by the intervenors. The court concluded that FERC's decisions were not arbitrary or capricious and were supported by substantial evidence. View "Entergy Arkansas, LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, was electrocuted while carrying a long-handled aluminum tool at a construction site. The tool either touched or came close to a high-voltage power line owned by the defendant utility company. The plaintiff sustained severe injuries, including amputations and a traumatic brain injury. He filed a lawsuit against the general contractor and the utility company, alleging negligence and premises liability.The Wayne Circuit Court denied the defendants' motions for summary disposition. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the general contractor was not liable under the common work area doctrine and that the utility company did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to survive summary disposition. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding three of the four elements of the common work area doctrine for the general contractor. Specifically, there were factual disputes about the height of the power lines and whether the general contractor took reasonable steps to guard against the danger. The court also found that multiple subcontractors were exposed to the risk, satisfying the requirement of a high degree of risk to a significant number of workers in a common work area.Regarding the utility company, the court found genuine issues of material fact about whether the power lines were properly maintained and whether the injury was foreseeable. The court concluded that the utility company had a duty to ensure the safety of the power lines, given the pre-injury communications and the known dangers of high-reaching conductive tools.The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "El-Jamaly V Kirco Manix Construction Llc" on Justia Law

The case involves the California Community Choice Association (the Association), which represents Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) that purchase electricity on behalf of residents and businesses. The Association challenged a resolution by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that set the effective dates for the expansion of two CCAs, Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE) and East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), to January 2025. The Association argued that the PUC exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to follow legal procedures in setting these dates.The PUC had issued Draft Resolution E-5258, setting January 1, 2025, as the earliest possible effective date for the expansions of CCCE and EBCE. The Association, CCCE, and EBCE opposed this, claiming the PUC overstepped its authority. The PUC adopted the resolution and later denied rehearing requests, modifying some factual findings but maintaining the 2025 effective date. The PUC justified the delay by citing past failures of CCCE and EBCE to meet resource adequacy requirements, which led to cost shifting to customers of investor-owned utilities.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the PUC acted within its jurisdiction under Public Utilities Code section 366.2, subdivision (a)(4), which mandates preventing cost shifting between CCA and non-CCA customers. The court held that the PUC's decision to delay the expansions was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by evidence of past resource adequacy deficiencies by CCCE and EBCE. The court affirmed the PUC's decision and resolution, concluding that the Association's arguments did not demonstrate that the PUC had abused its discretion. View "Cal. Community Choice Assn. v. Public Utilities Com." on Justia Law

This case involves the sale of electricity under the Federal Power Act and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) efforts to limit the rates at which certain wholesale electricity is traded. For over two decades, FERC has maintained a "soft" price cap for certain short-term electricity sales in parts of the western United States. In August 2020, a heat wave in the western United States led to increased prices in the market for short-term electricity supply. Some of the short-term sales occurred at prices above FERC's soft cap. Sellers who transacted at above-cap prices were required to justify those transactions to FERC or be required to refund sale prices that exceed the cap. After reviewing the sellers' justification filings, FERC determined that some sellers had failed to justify their above-cap sales and ordered partial refunds.The case was brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court found that FERC should have conducted a Mobile-Sierra analysis, which presumes that contract rates formed through arms-length, bilateral negotiation are reasonable, before ordering refunds. The court agreed with the sellers that FERC erred by failing to conduct this analysis prior to ordering refunds. As a result, the court granted the sellers' petitions for review, vacated the orders they challenged, and remanded for further proceedings. The court dismissed the consumers' petitions for review as moot. View "Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

This case involves five large water utilities and an association representing investor-owned water utilities' interests, collectively referred to as the Water Companies. The Water Companies sought to overturn an order by the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) that eliminated a conservation-focused ratesetting mechanism known as the Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (WRAM). The WRAM was designed to encourage water conservation by decoupling a water company's revenue from the amount of water sold. The Commission's order to eliminate the WRAM was not based on the merits of the mechanism but on procedural issues.The Commission's decision to eliminate the WRAM was made in a proceeding that was ostensibly focused on improving the accuracy of water sales forecasts. The Water Companies argued that the Commission did not provide adequate notice that the elimination of the WRAM was one of the issues to be considered in the proceeding.The Supreme Court of California agreed with the Water Companies. The court found that the Commission's scoping memos, which are supposed to outline the issues to be considered in a proceeding, did not provide adequate notice that the WRAM's elimination was on the table. The court concluded that the Commission's failure to give adequate notice required the order to be set aside. The court did not rule on the merits of the WRAM itself. View "Golden State Water Co. v. Public Utilities Com." on Justia Law

The case involves North Farm Home Owners Association, Inc. (North Farm) and the Bristol County Water Authority (BCWA). North Farm, a multi-building condominium complex in Bristol, Rhode Island, had granted several easements to BCWA, a public utility responsible for providing water to residential and commercial customers in Bristol County. From 1975 to 1995, BCWA measured water service to each condominium unit individually. However, between 1993 and 1995, representatives of the parties discussed converting the individual meter system to a centralized, master meter system. This correspondence is at the heart of the dispute.The Superior Court entered partial summary judgment in favor of BCWA on counts three and four of North Farm's third amended complaint. North Farm appealed, arguing that a valid contract was formed through their 1993–1995 correspondence, that the hearing justice ignored allegations that the 2019 pass-through rate was illegal, and that the hearing justice denied North Farm’s motion to amend without a finding of prejudice.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. The court found that the 1993–1995 correspondence did not establish the existence of a contract as a matter of law. The court held that the letters did not show the parties’ mutual assent to the material contract terms by means of offer and acceptance. The court also found that North Farm failed to produce sufficient evidence that a valid contract for the material terms existed. Therefore, the hearing justice’s grant of summary judgment on count three of the third amended complaint was proper. The court also affirmed the hearing justice's grant of summary judgment on count four, as North Farm did not properly plead any basis for granting injunctive or compensatory relief due to BCWA’s purported unlawful discrimination. View "North Farm Home Owners Association, Inc. v. Bristol County Water Authority" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the use of forecasts in the electric energy industry, specifically in proposing rates for electricity-generating entities. The New York Independent System Operator, Inc., a non-profit entity that operates New York’s electric grid and oversees the state’s wholesale electricity markets, proposed rates for the 2021–2025 period. It shortened the amortization period from twenty years to seventeen years, justifying the change by pointing to the recently enacted New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, 2019. The Act proclaims that by the year 2040, the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) initially rejected the System Operator’s submission, deeming the justification for a seventeen-year commercial lifespan “speculative”. Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc., a trade association of electricity generators, sought judicial review of FERC’s rejection. The court granted their petition, holding that FERC failed to sufficiently explain its reasons for rejecting the System Operator’s proposal. On remand, FERC again rejected the System Operator’s analysis as “speculative”. Independent Power Producers sought rehearing before FERC, which granted its request. This time, FERC approved the System Operator’s submission. The Public Service Commission sought (re-)rehearing before FERC, which was denied. The Public Service Commission now petitions for judicial review in this court.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the Public Service Commission’s petitions for review. The court found that FERC’s ultimate decision to approve the shortened amortization period satisfied the directives of the court's prior judgment. The court also found that FERC’s decision to not address the cost impact of the change was in line with the court’s precedents. The court concluded that the Public Service Commission can file a separate complaint to argue that the existing rate design is producing rates that are not just and reasonable. View "New York State Public Service Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and two market participants, RWE Renewables Americas, LLC and TX Hereford Wind, LLC. Following Winter Storm Uri, the Legislature amended the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) to require that protocols adopted by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) must be approved by the PUC before they take effect. ERCOT then adopted a revision to its protocols, which was approved by the PUC, setting the price of electricity at the regulatory maximum under Energy Emergency Alert Level 3 conditions. RWE challenged the PUC's approval order in the Third Court of Appeals, arguing that the order was both substantively and procedurally invalid.The Third Court of Appeals held that the PUC's order was both substantively invalid—because the PUC exceeded its statutory authority by setting the price of electricity—and procedurally invalid—because the PUC failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act’s rulemaking procedures in issuing the order.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the PUC’s approval order is not a “competition rule[] adopted by the commission” subject to the judicial-review process for PUC rules. The court found that PURA envisions a separate process for ERCOT-adopted protocols, and the statutory requirement that the PUC approve those adopted protocols does not transform PUC approval orders into PUC rules eligible for direct review by a court of appeals. Therefore, the Third Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over this proceeding. The Supreme Court of Texas vacated the court of appeals’ judgment and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Public Utility Commission v. RWE Renewables Americas, LLC" on Justia Law