As a follow up to a previous post the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its decision on April 21, 2021, reversing the Minnesota Court of Appeals and remanding the matter for further review.  In so doing, the Court concluded that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission properly concluded that MEPA review was not required.

The Court first analyzed environmental review under Minn. Stat. § 216B.48, which governs the approval of affiliated-interest agreements, finding that nothing in the statute requires environmental review, and the legislature did not instruct the Commission to conduct environmental review as part of its analysis.  Additionally, the Court reasoned that the Commission properly analyzed whether the affiliated-interest agreements satisfied the public-interest test by considering Minnesota’s resource planning and certificate of need statutes.  The Court next analyzed whether the language within MEPA independently requires environmental review of affiliated-interest agreements.  Noting that “MEPA is not applicable unless [the] action has the potential for significant environmental effects,” and because “the decision to approve the terms and conditions of Minnesota Power’s affiliated-interest agreements does not grant a permit, does not approve the construction or operation of the NTEC power plant,” the Court concluded that MEPA does not independently require the Commission to conduct additional environmental review as part of its approval process.

Because of this conclusion, the Court did not address the remaining dormant Commerce Clause considerations, and, therefore, reversed the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the matter for determination of whether the Commission otherwise erred in approving the affiliated-interest agreements, though its decision was not unanimous with Justice Chutich issuing a dissent.

With the matter once again before the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Stoel Rives will continue to track this matter and provide updates as necessary.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Riley Conlin Riley Conlin

Riley Conlin is an associate in the firm’s Energy Development Group and focuses his practice on regulatory matters at the state and federal levels.

Prior to joining Stoel Rives, Riley was an associate and a law clerk for a litigation firm in Minneapolis…

Riley Conlin is an associate in the firm’s Energy Development Group and focuses his practice on regulatory matters at the state and federal levels.

Prior to joining Stoel Rives, Riley was an associate and a law clerk for a litigation firm in Minneapolis, a student attorney for the University of Minnesota Business Law Clinic, and completed multiple clerkship and summer associate positions while in law school.

Click here for Riley Conlin’s full bio.

Photo of Sarah Johnson Phillips Sarah Johnson Phillips

Sarah Johnson Phillips is a partner in the firm’s Energy Development practice group, where she focuses on energy project development; buying, selling and financing energy projects; and energy regulatory matters. She advises large wind and solar project developers on permitting and real estate…

Sarah Johnson Phillips is a partner in the firm’s Energy Development practice group, where she focuses on energy project development; buying, selling and financing energy projects; and energy regulatory matters. She advises large wind and solar project developers on permitting and real estate matters, including obtaining major project permits, negotiating leases and easements, and title work.  She also has particular experience working on distributed solar and community-shared solar projects, including negotiating offtake agreements, leases, financing arrangements, M&A transactions, interconnection agreements, and regulatory matters. In addition, Sarah works with large energy consumers on a range of regulatory issues and proceedings affecting ratepayers and regularly appears before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

Click here for Sarah Johnson Phillips’ full bio.

Photo of Andrew Moratzka Andrew Moratzka

Andrew Moratzka focuses on litigation of various utility- and energy-related issues. Drew represents iron mines, paper companies, refineries, steel manufacturers and other large industrial customers in electric and gas rate cases and various regulatory matters at the state and federal level. He also…

Andrew Moratzka focuses on litigation of various utility- and energy-related issues. Drew represents iron mines, paper companies, refineries, steel manufacturers and other large industrial customers in electric and gas rate cases and various regulatory matters at the state and federal level. He also represents independent power producers. In these roles, Drew regularly appears before state public utilities commissions and administrative law judges. Drew also has experience arguing energy-related and bankruptcy-related issues at the appellate level. Given his background, clients also retain Drew for utility contract negotiations and to consult on various legislative matters. Drew is a past chair of the firm’s Energy Development practice group.

Click here for Andrew Moratzka’s full bio.