Seventh Circuit Rejects Federal Preemption and Dormant Commerce Clause Challenges to Illinois Nuclear ZEC Program

Sep 21, 2018

Reading Time : 4 min

By: Shawn Whites (Paralegal)

Background

The Illinois ZEC program is one of several such programs enacted or under consideration by various states.  Modeled in large part after renewable energy credit or certificate (REC) programs,1 ZECs compensate participating nuclear generators for the environmental attributes associated with their production of emissions-free electricity.  Proponents claim that ZECs are necessary to value the environmental contributions of these facilities in the absence of a state or federal carbon price.  Opponents argue that ZECs are focused more on maintaining high-paying in-state jobs than environmental goals, and that the state payments suppress wholesale market prices by forestalling the retirement of uneconomic units.

In the federal courts, opponents’ primary arguments have focused on ZECs’ similarity to a Maryland program subsidizing new gas-fired generation, which the Supreme Court invalidated in Hughes v. Talen Energy.2  In a consciously narrow opinion, the Court held that the Maryland program, by conditioning payment on participation in the wholesale auctions, intruded on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) exclusion jurisdiction over wholesale rates under the Federal Power Act (FPA).3  However, the Court made clear that its holding should not be read as applying to existing and future state subsidy programs “untethered to a generator’s wholesale market participation.”4

Seventh Circuit Opinion

Sticking to the narrow holding of Hughes, the Seventh Circuit observed that the Illinois ZEC program included no obligation for nuclear generators to participate in wholesale auctions and was, therefore, permissible under Hughes.  Like the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit further observed that the FPA reserves to the states the authority to regulate generation within their boundaries, and that such authority is not curtailed because it may “incidentally affect areas within FERC’s domain.”5  The court concluded that, “because states retain authority over power generation, a state policy that affects [wholesale] price[s] only by increasing the quantity of power available for sale is not preempted by federal law.”6

The Seventh Circuit’s opinion is short, giving the impression that the court easily reached its holding.  But the history of the proceeding suggests otherwise: two rounds of briefing took place, and the court invited FERC to file an amicus brief addressing whether the ZEC program intruded on FERC’s exclusive jurisdiction over wholesale rates.  FERC replied in the negative, explaining that it will use its “means and [its FPA] authority to confront” any impacts of state programs, such as ZECs, on the wholesale markets.7  Although plaintiffs argued that the potential need for FERC action was proof of preemption, the court agreed with FERC, noting that “the need to make adjustments [to wholesale market rules] in light of states’ exercise of their lawful powers does not diminish the scope of those powers.”8

The Seventh Circuit also analyzed challenges to the ZEC program under the dormant Commerce Clause.  This Constitutional doctrine, which prevents states from burdening interstate commerce, has dogged state generation subsidy programs for years.  Although dormant Commerce Clause challenges have rarely, if ever, succeeded in this context—partly because states consciously design their programs to circumvent such challenges—they are a recurring feature of federal complaints.  The Seventh Circuit dealt with these challenges almost summarily, observing that the “Supreme Court treats silence by Congress as preventing discriminatory legislation.”9  Since Congress expressly gave states regulatory authority over generation—authority naturally confined to a state’s boundaries—the court reasoned that it makes little sense to argue that such authority is prohibited by the dormant Commerce Clause.10  Although unlikely to be the end of dormant Commerce Clause attacks on state generation subsidy programs, the Seventh Circuit’s incisive analysis is sure to be cited in rebuttal to future challenges.

What’s Next?

A similar preemption and dormant Commerce Clause challenge to New York’s ZEC program remains pending before the Second Circuit, raising the possibility of a circuit split.  A circuit split seems unlikely, though, considering the Second Circuit’s recent dismissal of a preemption and dormant Commerce Clause challenge to a Connecticut program based in part on RECs,11 which, as noted above, serve as the model for ZECs. 

In the near-term, the Seventh Circuit’s holding is a welcome sign to New Jersey, where the Board of Public Utilities recently initiated the process of implementing ZEC legislation.  It is also possible that the holding could serve as a catalyst for designing ZEC-like programs in other nuclear-heavy states.   

It is unclear if plaintiffs will seek further appeal of the Illinois ZEC program, either to the Seventh Circuit sitting en banc or to the Supreme Court.

 


1 See Nuclear Energy Institute, Zero-Emission Credits 3 (2018), https://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/resources/reports-and-briefs/zero-emission-credits-201804.pdf.

2 Hughes v. Talen Energy Mktg., LLC, 136 S. Ct. 1288 (2016) (“Hughes”).

3 Id. at 1299.

4 Id. (internal quotations omitted).

5 7th Circuit Opinion at *2 (citing Hughes at 1298).

6 Id. at *3.

7 Brief for the United States and FERC as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants-Respondents and Affirmance at 7-8, Vill. of Old Mill Creek v. Star, No. 17-2433 (7th Cir. May 29, 2018).

8 7th Circuit Opinion at *3.

9 Id. at *4.

10 Id. at *3.

11 See Allco Finance Ltd. v. Klee, 861 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2017).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2025

On June 4–5, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) hosted a commissioner-led technical conference to discuss resource adequacy challenges facing regional transmission organizations and independent system operators (RTO). The conference is a response to the growing concern that multiple RTO regions across the country may not have sufficient supply available in the coming years to meet demand due to resource retirements, the pace of new generation entry and higher load growth arising from the construction of data centers and reindustrialization.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 12, 2025

We are pleased to share the presentation slide deck and a recording of Akin’s recently presented webinar, “Navigating U.S. Policy Shifts in the Critical Minerals Sector.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 10, 2025

On June 4, 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced revisions to its procedures for pipeline safety enforcement actions. The changes, outlined in two new policy memoranda from PHMSA’s Office of the Chief Counsel (PHC), aim to enhance due process protections for pipeline operators by clarifying how civil penalties are calculated and expanding the disclosure of agency records in enforcement proceedings.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

May 22, 2025

On May 19, 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) finalized its 2024 LNG Export Study: Energy, Economic and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports (the 2024 Study) through the release of a Response to Comments on the 2024 Study. The Response to Comments concludes that the 2024 Study, as augmented through public comments submitted on or before March 20, 2025, supporting a finding that liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports serve the public interest. With the comment process complete, DOE will move forward with final orders on pending applications to export LNG to non-free trade agreement (non-FTA) countries.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

May 20, 2025

On Thursday, May 15, the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Freight, Pipelines and Safety held a hearing titled, “Pipeline Safety Reauthorization: Ensuring the Safe and Efficient Movement of American Energy.” The hearing examined legislative priorities for reauthorizing the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

April 15, 2025

On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order (EO)1 directing several federal agencies and subagencies that regulate energy, environmental, and conservation matters,2 including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Energy (DOE), to establish conditional sunset dates for “regulations governing energy production.” The stated objective of the EO is to require agencies to periodically reexamine their regulations to ensure that they continue to serve the public good. For FERC, the order covers regulations promulgated under the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act (FUA)3, as amended, while DOE must consider regulations promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 1992), the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), as amended (collectively the Covered Regulations).4 To the extent the DOE has been directed to promulgate regulations under various sections of the NGA, FPA and FUA, and FERC has been directed to promulgate regulations specific to the statutes attributed to the DOE in the EO, the EO is silent. The EO expressly does not apply to those “regulatory permitting regimes authorized by statute.”5

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

April 10, 2025

On April 8, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) directing the Department of Energy (DOE) to take steps to expand the use of its emergency authority under Federal Power Act (FPA) Section 202(c) to require the retention of generation resources deemed necessary to maintain resource adequacy within at risk-regions of the bulk power system regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).1 The EO appears to envision a more active role for DOE in overseeing and supporting the resource adequacy of the grid that deviates from the historic use of Section 202(c) and touches on issues at the intersection of state and federal authority over resource planning.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

March 10, 2025

On March 5, 2025, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) approved Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC’s (GPLNG) request to extend a deadline to begin exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) from its terminal facility currently under construction in Sabine Pass, Texas for 18 months, from September 30, 2025, to March 31, 2027 (the Order). The Order amends GPLNG’s two existing long-term orders authorizing the export of domestically produced LNG to countries with which the United States does and does not have free trade agreements (FTA).1  The Order does not amend the authorizations’ end date, which remains December 31, 2050. Under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), the DOE may authorize exports to non-FTA countries following completion of a “public interest” review, whereas exports to FTA countries are deemed to be in the public interest and the DOE is directed to issue authorizations without modification or delay.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.