Commerce Clause Challenge to Transmission Law
NextEra v. Paxton, et al.,
Most Recent Development:Complaint filed on June 17, 2019 in U.S. District Court
Case Documents

Case Summary
NextEra’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas alleges that recently enacted amendments to the state’s public utility laws violate the dormant Commerce Clause and “substantially impair” the company’s “contractual right” to build a new line in East Texas. NextEra alleges that Texas law “ousts” the company “from acquiring further business or developing and constructing new transmission projects in Texas” by reserving the transmission market for utilities that already own transmission and distribution facilities in the state.

SB 1938, signed into law in May 2019, restricts the Public Utility Commission’s authority to grant Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN). Previously, the law allowed the PUC to grant a CPCN to an “electric utility or other person.” SB 1938 deletes “or other person,” and specifies that the PUC may grant a CPCN for a transmission line only to the owner of the existing facility that interconnects to the new line. The law also limits utility transfers of CPCNs.

These amendments, according to NextEra, “benefit a defined few utilities that already own transmission and distribution facilities in Texas, and block other entities, including new entrants, and out-of-state developers that otherwise could qualify as public utilities under Texas law, from developing or acquiring transmission facilities.” Because the law is “meant to reserve business opportunities . . . which used to be available to all businesses, only to existing electric utilities that currently own facilities in Texas,” NextEra argues that “a virtual per se rule of invalidity applies” under established dormant Commerce Clause precedent.

NextEra also claims that the law violates the Constitution’s Contract Clause. Last year, the Midcontinent System Operator (MISO), a FERC-regulated regional transmission and market operator, conducted a competitive process to choose a developer for a 23-mile transmission line in East Texas that is designed to enhance market efficiency. MISO ranked NextEra’s proposal highest among the twelve it received and awarded the rights to develop the project to NextEra. The company claims that its ability to construct the project is impaired by SB 1938.

District Court
Complaint (Jun. 17, 2019)
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Jun. 17, 2019)

LSP Transmission’s Motion to Intervene (Jul. 12, 2019)
Texas’s Opposition to LSP’s Motion to Intervene (Jul. 19, 2019) and Exhibit A
LSP Transmission’s Reply (Jul. 26, 2019)

Entergy’s Motion to Intervene (Aug. 6, 2019)
Oncor’s Motion to Intervene (Aug. 7, 2019)
Southwestern Public Service Company’s Motion to Intervene (Aug. 8, 2019)
NextEra’s Opposition to Utility Motions to Intervene (Aug. 13, 2019)
Southwestern’s Reply (Aug. 15, 2019)
Entergy’s Reply (Aug. 16, 2019)
Oncor’s Reply (Aug. 20, 2019)

East Texas Electric Cooperative’s Motion to Intervene and Complaint in Intervention(Aug. 19, 2019)

Texas Industrial Energy Consumers’ Motion to Intervene and Answer to Complaint (Aug. 13, 2019)
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Industrial Consumers Intervention (Aug. 20, 2019)

Motions to Dismiss
(Utilities’ motions are “proposed” because the court had not yet granted them intervenor status)
Texas’ Motion to Dismiss (Aug. 23, 2019)
Entergy’s Proposed Motion to Dismiss (Aug. 23, 2019)
Southwestern’s Proposed Motion to Dismiss (Aug. 23, 2019)
Oncor’s Proposed Motion to Dismiss (Aug. 23, 2019)

NextEra’s Initial Procedural Response to Motions to Dismiss (Aug. 27, 2019
TX – NextEra’s Response to Motions to Dismiss (Sep. 16, 2019)

Texas’ Reply to NextEra’s Response (Sep. 27, 2019)

Entergy’s Proposed Motion in Opposition to Request for Injunction (Aug. 23, 2019)
Southwestern’s Proposed Motion in Opposition to Request for Injunction (Aug. 23, 2019)

U.S. Government’s Statement of Interest (in support of complaint) (Sep. 20, 2019)