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

March 10, 2026

Federal energy regulators are assuming expanded roles as the administration prioritizes energy dominance and infrastructure development to meet unprecedented power demand. FERC Chairman Laura Swett has vowed to expedite data center interconnections while addressing jurisdictional challenges, warning that unmet electricity demand could drive data centers abroad and create national security risks. The agency is processing pipeline applications faster than in prior years and considering blanket authorizations for certain LNG and hydroelectric projects to streamline approvals. 

Pipeline projects previously stalled by Clean Water Act permits are being revitalized, particularly in northeastern states where historically high electricity prices have increased openness to natural gas infrastructure. The Department of Energy is expanding its emergency authority to require retention of generation resources and has granted major LNG export approvals, signaling commitment to expanding U.S. export capacity under a streamlined framework that deprioritizes climate considerations.  

The Administration is bullish on the opportunities for the U.S. energy industry in Venezuela and eager to support companies willing to navigate the political risk inherent in the operations at the moment. Early meetings with President Trump and industry leaders showed the path forward may be longer and more complex than anticipated by the President. 

As permitting reforms advance and the pendulum swings toward fossil fuel favorability, the regulatory and policy landscape is fundamentally reshaping energy infrastructure development timelines and investment opportunities. 

Oil & Gas in 2026: Energy Policy & Regulation 

Delve into the complete regulatory & policy outlook at our Oil & Gas in 2026 report.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

March 3, 2026

Macroeconomic turbulence and volatile commodity markets significantly influenced oil & gas M&A activity throughout 2025, with deals showing renewed momentum only in the year's second half.  

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 24, 2026

On February 19, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order rescinding the soft price cap for bilateral spot market energy sales in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region.1 As previously covered, on July 15, 2025, FERC initiated a Federal Power Act Section 206 proceeding following the D.C. Circuit’s decision finding that FERC must apply the Mobile-Sierra public interest standard before ordering refunds for above-cap bilateral sales and vacating FERC’s orders requiring refunds for certain bilateral spot market transactions in the WECC region that exceeded the $1,000 MWh soft price cap.2 FERC’s Order follows through on the proposal it made last July to eliminate the WECCs soft price cap and marks a recognition that Western wholesale markets have evolved over the past two decades to become sufficiently competitive to render the soft price cap unnecessary.  

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 23, 2026

The oil & gas industry is experiencing a fundamental transformation in how companies access and deploy capital in 2026. Despite strong balance sheets and robust free cash flow generation, the sector is witnessing strategic shifts in funding sources and investment priorities that signal a new era of capital allocation.

...

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.