Energy & Environment Legal Institute v. Epel
2015 WL 4174876, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12057, 793 F.3d 1169 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The dormant Commerce Clause's extraterritoriality doctrine, which provides a near per se rule of invalidity, is limited to state laws that are price control or price affirmation regulations, link in-state prices to out-of-state prices, and discriminate against out-of-state economic actors.
Facts:
- Colorado enacted a renewable energy mandate requiring that 20% of the electricity sold by generators to Colorado consumers must come from renewable sources, with this percentage set to increase over time.
- Colorado consumers receive their electricity from a large, interconnected power grid that serves eleven states and parts of Canada and Mexico.
- Electricity on this integrated grid can originate from any point and be delivered to any other point, meaning power from various sources is commingled.
- Colorado is a net importer of electricity from this interstate grid.
- The Energy and Environment Legal Institute (EELI) has a member that is an out-of-state coal producer.
- This coal producer sells coal to out-of-state utilities that generate electricity and feed it into the shared grid.
- The Colorado mandate reduces the overall demand for coal-generated electricity on the grid, thereby potentially harming the business of EELI's member.
Procedural Posture:
- The Energy and Environment Legal Institute (EELI) sued the commissioners of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
- EELI alleged that Colorado's renewable energy mandate violated the dormant Commerce Clause under the Pike, Philadelphia, and Baldwin doctrines.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Colorado commissioners, upholding the state law against all of EELI's challenges.
- EELI, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, challenging the ruling only on the basis of the Baldwin extraterritoriality doctrine.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Colorado’s renewable energy mandate, which requires a percentage of electricity sold to Colorado consumers to come from renewable sources, violate the dormant Commerce Clause under the extraterritoriality doctrine by impermissibly controlling conduct beyond the state's borders?
Opinions:
Majority - Gorsuch
No, Colorado's renewable energy mandate does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause's extraterritoriality doctrine. The near per se rule of invalidity under this doctrine, established in cases like Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., is narrow and applies only when a state law exhibits three specific characteristics: (1) it is a price control or price affirmation statute, (2) it links in-state prices to those charged in other states, and (3) it discriminates against out-of-state rivals or consumers. Colorado's mandate does none of these; it is a quality standard for a product sold within the state, not a price regulation. The court rejected the appellant's broad interpretation that any state law with the 'practical effect' of controlling out-of-state conduct is automatically unconstitutional, noting such a rule would risk invalidating a vast range of legitimate state health and safety regulations. While the mandate affects the interstate energy market, it does not disproportionately harm out-of-state producers versus in-state producers; all fossil fuel producers are equally affected, and all renewable producers are equally helped, regardless of location.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the extraterritoriality doctrine within dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence, confining its near per se rule to a specific type of price-control statute. By distinguishing between direct price controls and regulations that merely have indirect, upstream market effects, the court provides states with more legal latitude to enact environmental and energy regulations, such as renewable portfolio standards. The ruling makes it more difficult for challengers to strike down such laws on extraterritoriality grounds, forcing them to rely on the more difficult-to-prove Pike balancing test or the Philadelphia anti-discrimination rule. This precedent strengthens the ability of individual states to regulate their internal markets for goods like energy, even when those markets are part of a larger, interconnected interstate system.
