Electric Cooperatives Seek FERC Determination on PURPA Preemption of Maryland’s Community Solar Program

Sep 7, 2016

Reading Time : 3 min

By: Shawn Whites, (Paralegal)

Under Maryland’s community solar program, electric utilities are required to compensate community solar generators for the power produced in excess of the generator’s needs, effectively purchasing and taking title to the power. The utilities must then “use” that excess power. As the cooperatives explain in their Petition, in order to use such power, an electric utility must sell it to others. The cooperatives then conclude that, because they are reselling the power, the original purchase of the excess generation must constitute a wholesale sale under the FPA, under which FERC has exclusive jurisdiction.

The cooperatives recognize that Section 210 of PURPA provides states with the authority to establish wholesale rates if the electric generator is a qualifying facility (QF). However, PURPA requires that the state set wholesale rates no higher than a utility’s avoided costs. Hence the issue: if the MPSC’s regulations require that an electric utility use, or purchase, the excess power of a community solar generator—a “wholesale” sale—then that generator must be a QF, and the rates for the sale must be less than or equivalent to the cooperative’s avoided costs. If the generator is not a QF, then the MPSC lacks jurisdiction to set the rates for a wholesale sale, because only FERC has the authority to set wholesale rates for non-QF generators. The cooperatives argue, however, that neither the community solar statute nor the MPSC’s regulations “contain an express requirement that a [community solar generator] must be a QF.”

If FERC determines that a generator participating in Maryland’s community solar program must be a QF, then the cooperatives state that the next step is to ensure that they are purchasing the excess power at their avoided cost, as set forth by PURPA.1  Instead, they argue, the current MPSC regulations are ambiguous as to whether or not the costs paid for excess generation would exceed the avoided costs. As the MPSC regulations are written, “an electric company shall pay a subscriber [of the program] a dollar amount of excess generation as reasonably adjusted to exclude the distribution, transmission, and non-commodity portion of the customer’s bill unless the electric company records subscriber credits as kilowatt hours.”2 While the first half of the text, by nature of “excluding” wires-related costs, implies a rate that could be less than or equal to the cooperatives’ avoided costs, the cooperatives take issue with the italicized portion of the regulation, claiming that it “sets payments potentially at a level other than the actual avoided costs at the time of delivery,” thus “creat[ing] an exception to the avoided cost standard under PURPA.”  The cooperatives’ solution is to simply add language to the MPSC regulations mirroring the language of PURPA, noting that it is well within the authority of the MPSC to do so.

The cooperatives lastly note that the MPSC regulations are at odds with the language of the community solar program’s statute, which states that excess generation “shall be purchased under the [utility’s] process for purchasing the output from qualifying facilities at the amount it would have cost the electric company to procure the energy,”3 or, simply put, the avoided cost. Since the statute is compliant with the standards of PURPA, the cooperatives argue that the MPSC regulations could be revised to comply with their own statute, as well as federal law.

The Petition comes shortly after FERC reviewed PURPA’s provisions on mandatory purchase obligations and avoided cost calculations at a June 29, 2016, technical conference and further highlights the growing tension between the federal and state jurisdiction of electricity sales.4 Depending on the outcome of FERC’s ruling on the Petition, the case could have large effects on the growing number of state-implemented community solar programs, particularly on the ways in which state regulatory authorities establish the costs for purchases of excess generation in compliance with PURPA.


1  “Avoided costs” are the costs that the cooperatives would have paid either to generate the electricity themselves or purchase it from another source.

2  18 C.F.R. § 292.304(a)(2).

3  Md. Code Regs. 20.62.02.07A.

4  Md. Code Ann., Pub. Util. § 7-306.2(d)(7).

5  See our blogs on federal & state jurisdictional issues here and here.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 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.