Non-Profit Groups Challenge Colorado's RES and Question Public Policy Favoring Wind Energy
Stoel Rives partner Bev Pearman reviewed the complaint filed Monday in American Tradition Institute, et al., v. Colorado and prepared this analysis:
On April 4, 2011, the American Tradition Institute (“ATI”), the American Tradition Partnership (“ATP”), and Rod Lueck filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado arguing that Colorado is unconstitutionally discriminating against out-of-state renewable energy producers. ATI is a nonprofit organization “dedicated to the advancement of rational, free-market solutions to America’s land, energy, and environmental challenges,” and ATP is a lobbying organization “dedicated to fighting environmental extremism and promoting responsible development and management of land, water, and natural resources in the Rocky Mountain West and across the United States.” Rod Lueck is a member of ATI and ATP.
Colorado’s renewable energy standard (“RES”) states that by 2020 the state’s two major investor-owned utilities must get 30 percent of electricity sold from recycled or renewable resources. Renewable energy resources are “solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, new hydroelectricity with a nameplate rating of ten megawatts or less, and hydroelectricity in existence on January 1, 2005, with a nameplate rating of thirty megawatts or less.” “Fossil and nuclear fuels and their derivatives” are not “eligible energy resources” for complying with the RES. Additionally, each kilowatt of electricity generated in Colorado from certain recycled or renewable sources is given an enhanced value of one and one-quarter kilowatt-hours for purposes of meeting the mandated standards.
Plaintiffs raise both a sweeping Commerce Clause claim and a more focused Commerce Clause claim. The sweeping claim is that the statutory scheme is unconstitutional because it discriminates against non-renewable generation resources, both in-state and out-of-state, with plaintiffs alleging that such non-renewable generation is “legal, safer, less costly, less polluting and more reliable than renewable generation. A more focused claim is that the statutory preference given to in-state renewable electricity establishes a “market-bias against otherwise qualifying renewable sources located outside of Colorado and an inflated cost of complying with the RES requirements.”
Plaintiffs’ Commerce Clause claim is grounded in a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision in KT&G Corp. v. Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, 535 F.3d 1114, 1143 (10th Cir. 2008), which says a state may violate the dormant Commerce Clause by:
· Discriminating against interstate commerce in favor of intrastate commerce, unless “the discrimination is demonstrably justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism;” or
· Imposing “a burden on interstate commerce incommensurate with the local benefits secured;” or
· Creating mandates with the “practical effect of extraterritorial control of commerce occurring entirely outside the boundaries of the state in question.”
We expect that Colorado will vigorously defend the RES as being constitutional because its interest in promoting renewable energy generation is an important policy choice. Plaintiffs are attacking that position head-on, however, by challenging the policy of favoring renewable resources, particularly wind energy. They allege that wind energy is not reliable, causes more pollution due to the cycling of coal and natural gas plants during times when wind generation is not possible, and drives up utility costs for consumers. They do not attack other forms of renewable energy as vociferously, but still argue that any scheme favoring renewable resources over other energy sources burdens interstate commerce and violates the Commerce Clause.
The more focused claim (based on the preference given in-state renewable resources) is similar to a Commerce Clause challenge was brought nearly a year ago in Massachusetts by TransCanada Power Marketing, Ltd. (“TransCanada”). The Massachusetts suit did not challenge the policy of promoting renewable energy over non-renewable energy sources. It instead focused on renewable energy mandates and incentives favoring in-state generation. We do not know what arguments Massachusetts would have raised in defense of its program because the case was stayed after the state suspended the regulation underlying the statute in question. It issued emergency regulations, which were later adopted as final regulations, but the statute that establishes the challenged policy has not been amended. On April 1, 2011, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, an advocacy group that is leading the opposition to the Cape Wind project, filed a motion to intervene in that proceeding. It argued that TransCanada does not represent the interests of Massachusetts ratepayers. Their economic interests are allegedly harmed because the program at issue discourages utilities from entering long-term contracts with out-of-state generators, which has the effect of reducing out-of-state competition and increasing the cost of renewable energy for ratepayers.
The outcome of both of these cases could have far-reaching effects on other state’s RESs and renewable portfolio goals (RPGs). If the plaintiffs are successful with their claims, then the states with RESs and RPGs may have to modify their standards so they are not discriminating against out-of-state renewable energy generators. As we have noted before, the RESs with regional preferences may not be as much at risk. A key question that the courts have yet to answer are whether the RESs and RPGs create protectionist barriers to interstate trade. Check here for regular updates as these groundbreaking cases moves forward.
Colorado Likely to Increase its RPS to 30% by 2010
From our colleague Adam Walters:
In January Colorado Governor Bill Ritter and State House Democrats announced the introduction of a bill that would increase Colorado’s Renewable Energy Standard (RES) from 20% to 30% by 2020. The Governor, who recently announced that he would not run for re-election, is putting the weight of his not insubstantial political capital behind the bill, HB-10 1001 as a cornerstone of his gubernatorial legacy. Consequently, the Bill was symbolically proposed as the first bill of the 2010 legislative session.
On February 11, HB-10 1001 passed the House on its second reading. The Bill, which is broadly supported by Democrats, conservation organizations (see, e.g. the Sierra Club, Environment Colorado and Colorado Conservation Voters) the renewable energy industry and organized labor (the Bill has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO), is widely expected to pass in time for Governor Ritter to sign it into law before the conclusion of his term. Opposition to the Bill (and to increasing Colorado’s RES generally) includes the State Republican Party (which sees the Bill as boon to labor unions because it requires certain distributed generation facilities to be installed by licensed and certified contractors) and the oil and natural gas industry, for obvious reasons. (See, e.g. the Colorado Mining Association).
The major Colorado utilities, such as Xcel Energy, appear to be taking a wait-and-see approach to the Bill, having neither endorsed nor opposed it. According to a spokesman for the Governor’s office, Xcel, Colorado’s largest utility, is expected to meet the current RES five years ahead of schedule. However, according to a recent editorial in the Denver Post, Xcel supports passage of the Bill provided that it enables Xcel to meet the RES requirement without exceeding the two percent surcharge billed to ratepayers for renewable energy development.
In addition to increasing the RES standard overall, the Bill places greater emphasis on distributed generation resources as a means of fulfilling the RES. For a decent summary of the bill, as well as updates on its progress, check out Colorado Capital Watch.
