In addition to the cases about state energy policies summarized in the table, Statepowerproject.org also tracks cases initiated by the U.S. government pursuant to Executive Order 14260 and suits challenging orders issued by the U.S. Department of Energy pursuant to section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act.
Summary of Proceedings:
| Forum: | Challenge to: | Authority: | Status: |
| California Public Utilities Commission | California Renewable Portfolio Standard (interconnection, deliverability requirements) | Commerce Clause | CPUC denied challenge in 2013, no appeal to state or federal court |
| 9th Cir. Court of Appeals | California Low-Carbon Fuel Standard | Commerce Clause | Following remand, district court dismissed most claims in Aug. 2015 | 9th Cir. Court of Appeals | California Feed-In Tariff | Supremacy Clause | Appeals court held the state program is preempted |
| California, federal district court | cap-and-trade program | Compact, Commerce Clauses | District court dismissed |
| 10th Cir. Court of Appeals | Colorado Renewable Energy Standard | Commerce Clause | Appeals court upheld district court’s dismissal |
| 2nd Cir. Court of Appeals | Connecticut-mandated contracts contracts for renewable energy | Supremacy Clause | Appeals court upheld district court’s dismissal |
| 2nd Cir. Court of Appeals | Connecticut renewable energy RFP; RPS regional requirement | Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause | Appeals court upheld district court’s dismissal |
| Delaware, Federal District Court | Delaware law that benefited generators using fuel cells produced in DE) | Commerce Clause, Equal Protection Clause | Settlement reached in 2015; statute’s in-state requirements dropped |
| 7th Cir. Court of Appeals | Illinois Zero-Emission Credits for in-state nukes | Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause | Appeals court upheld district court’s dismissal |
| Maryland, Federal District Court | Maryland law regulating power marketers | Commerce Clause, First Amendment | Complaint filed |
| U.S. Supreme Court | State programs subsidizing new gas-fired power plants | Supremacy Clause | Court upheld lower court decisions finding the laws preempted by the Federal Power Act |
| Massachusetts, Federal District Court | Massachusetts law requiring long-term contracts for renewable energy; solar energy mandate | Commerce Clause | Settlement reached in 2010; statute’s in-state requirements dropped |
| 1st Cir. Court of Appeals | Contract between offshore wind developer and Massachusetts utility | Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause | First Circuit remanded to District Court; case moot |
| 1st Cir. Court of Appeals |
Massachusetts RPS and PURPA Implementation | Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause | Appeals court held state’s PURPA implementation invalid |
| 7th Cir. Court of Appeals | Michigan Renewable Energy Standard | Commerce Clause | In dicta in a 2013 decision, the Court said Michigan’s RES was unconstitutional |
| 8th Cir. Court of Appeals | Minnesota law providing in-state companies with rights to build new transmission | Commerce Clause | Appeals court upheld the law |
| 8th Cir. Court of Appeals | Minnesota law prohibiting imports from or contracts with new coal-fired generators | Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause | Appeals court upheld district court’s conclusion that the law is unconstitutional |
| Missouri state courts | Missouri Renewable Electricity Standard (in-state requirement) | Commerce Clause | Challenge moot because in-state requirement withdrawn |
| 2nd Cir. Court of Appeals | New York Zero-Emission Credits for in-state nukes | Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause | Appeals court upheld district court’s dismissal |
| Federal District Court, New York | New York PSC Approval of contract | Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause | Parties agreed to dismiss |
| New York Public Service Commission | New York Renewable Portfolio Standard (in-state requirement) | Commerce Clause | In-state requirement upheld by PSC |
| Supreme Court of Ohio | Rhode Island wind farm approval (based in part on in-state RPS requirement) | Commerce Clause | State court held that approval is not unconstitutional |
| 9th Cir. Court of Appeals | Oregon Low-Carbon Fuel Standard | Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause | Appeals court upheld district court’s dismissal |
| 3rd Cir. Court of Appeals | Pennsylvania Transmission Line Permitting Law | Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause | District could held law is preempted; appeal pending |
| 1st Cir. Court of Appeals | Contract between offshore wind developer and Rhode Island utility | Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause | District Court dismissed the claims; appeal dismissed on procedural grounds |
| Rhode Island Public Utility Commission, FERC | Contract between offshore wind developer and Rhode Island utility | Commerce Clause, Separation of Powers | PUC, FERC declined to address issues; PUC’s decision affirmed by RI Supreme Court |
| 5th Cir. Court of Appeals | Texas Transmission Law | Commerce Clause | Appeals court held law is likely unconstitutional |
| 9th Cir. Court of Appeals | Washington cap-and-trade law | Commerce Clause, Equal Protection Clause | Appeals court upheld district court’s dismissal |
State Power Project 