Supreme Court Invalidates Maryland Power Plant Subsidy Program and Reaffirms FERC’s Exclusive Authority Over Wholesale Capacity Markets

Apr 25, 2016

Reading Time : 5 min

In Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC (No. 14-614) and CPV Maryland, LLC v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC (No. 14-623)—the District Court and 4th Circuit cases underlying which we discussed here and here—Justice Ginsburg, writing for the unanimous Court, held that the Maryland program is pre-empted by the Federal Power Act (FPA) because it usurps FERC’s exclusive authority to regulate wholesale sales of electricity. Relying both on the statutory framework and text of the FPA and on principles of field and conflict pre-emption arising from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the Court affirmed the 4th Circuit’s judgment that the Maryland program set a wholesale rate in contravention of the FPA’s division of authority between FERC and the states and impermissibly invaded FERC’s “regulatory turf.”

Background

As we explained here, the challenged Maryland program, which arose from concerns that PJM’s capacity auctions were “failing to encourage development of sufficient new in-state generation,” involved (1) a solicitation of proposals from developers for a new natural gas-fired powerplant at a particular location and ultimately acceptance of a bid from CPV Maryland, LLC (CPV) to build that plant and (2) a requirement for several Maryland utilities “to enter into a 20-year . . . contract . . . with CPV at a rate CPV specified in its accepted proposal.” Those contracts would guarantee CPV the contract price for its capacity, rather than the price for that capacity established in PJM’s three-year forward capacity auctions. Incumbent generators—competitors of CPV—sued in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Maryland program “violates the Supremacy clause by setting a wholesale rate for electricity and by interfering with FERC’s capacity-auction policies” and regulatory authority.

The District Court agreed, finding that Maryland’s program “improperly set[] the rate CPV [would] receive[] for interstate wholesale capacity sales,” and that, while Maryland “may retain traditional state authority to regulate the development, location, and type of power plants within its borders,” the scope of the state’s “power is necessarily limited by FERC’s exclusive authority to set wholesale energy and capacity prices.” As we reported here, the 4th Circuit affirmed, holding that Maryland’s program “functionally set[] the rate that CPV [would] receive[] for its sales in the PJM auction,” which FERC extensively regulates, and therefore “strikes at the heart of [FERC’s] statutory power.”  Because Maryland’s program could “seriously distort the PJM auction’s price signals” and would “undermin[e] the incentive structure FERC has approved for construction of new generation” in PJM, the 4th Circuit held that it “impermissibly conflicts with FERC policies” and could not stand.

The Supreme Court’s Holding

Relying on the Supremacy Clause and related doctrines of field and conflict pre-emption, the Court rejected the Maryland program, agreeing with the 4th Circuit’s judgment that Maryland’s program “sets an interstate wholesale rate, contravening the FPA’s division of authority between state and federal regulators.” The state program’s guarantee to CPV of a rate for capacity different from the rate for capacity resulting from PJM’s capacity auctions—which FERC, through its close regulation of the auction structure and rules, has deemed just and reasonable—adjusts an interstate wholesale rate, impermissibly “invades FERC’s regulatory turf” and therefore cannot stand. According to Justice Ginsburg, the critical flaw of the contracts in the Maryland program is that they would operate “within the [PJM] auction,” mandating that the Maryland utilities and CPV “exchange money based on the cost of CPV’s capacity sales to PJM” through PJM’s auction, unlike bilateral capacity contracts formed outside the auction, under which ownership of a generator’s capacity would transfer to the buyer.

Justice Ginsburg was clear, however, that the Court’s holding is limited, noting that states “may regulate within the domain Congress assigned to them [under the FPA] even when their laws incidentally affect areas within FERC’s domain.” But they “may not seek to achieve ends, however legitimate, through regulatory means that intrude on FERC’s authority over interstate wholesale rates.” Nothing in the opinion, Justice Ginsburg emphasized, “should be read to foreclose” states from “encouraging production of new or clean generation through measures ‘untethered to a generator’s wholesale market participation.’” As long as such programs “do[] not condition payment of funds on capacity clearing [an] auction,” they “would not suffer from the same fatal defect that renders Maryland’s program unacceptable.”

Concurring Opinions

Justice Sotomayor wrote separately in concurrence, eschewing “talismanic pre-emption vocabulary” and emphasizing close examination of pre-emption questions involving statutes like the FPA, a collaborative federalism statute that “envisions a federal-state relationship marked by interdependence.” She agreed that Maryland’s program “impermissibly impeded the performance of one of FERC’s core regulatory duties”—to ensure just and reasonable wholesale rates—in contravention of the goals of the FPA and thus must be preempted. But she also noted that the Court “rightly recognizes the importance of protecting the States’ ability to contribute, within their regulatory domain, to the [FPA’s] goal of ensuring a sustainable supply of efficient and price-effective energy.”

Justice Thomas also wrote separately, concurring with the opinion in part and in the judgment. He agreed that the FPA’s text and framework compel the Court’s conclusion, but noted that he would have reached the same result on the text and structure of the FPA alone, without also relying on principles of implied preemption underlying the Court’s opinion.

Implications

Despite Justice Ginsburg’s emphasis on its limited nature, the Court’s decision leaves open the question of just what state measures to incentivize new generation development would be permissible under the Supremacy Clause and the FPA, as virtually any such program could affect outcomes (i.e., the formation of rates) in wholesale markets. Justice Ginsburg mentions, as discussed in the 4th Circuit decision, direct subsidies and tax rebates, as well as land grants, construction of state-owned generation facilities or re-regulation (i.e., returning to vertical integration, where transmission and distribution utilities also own and operate the power plants necessary to serve their own load). However, like the 4th Circuit decision, the Court’s decision provides little clarity regarding where the boundaries for such state programs should be drawn to avoid invalidation on grounds similar to those that doomed the Maryland program. Indeed, the Court said only that its decision regarding the Maryland program “need not and do[es] not address the permissibility of” such measures.

The Court’s decision likely also sealed the fate of a New Jersey program similar to Maryland’s program, which we discussed here and here. On April 25, 2016, the Court denied petitions for certiorari regarding the 3rd Circuit decision invalidating that New Jersey program on similar grounds, in Fiordaliso v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC (No. 14-694) and CPV Power Holdings v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC (No. 14-634).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

August 15, 2025

On August 8, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an enforcement order in Skye MS, LLC (Skye) and levied a $45,000 civil penalty on an intrastate pipeline operator in Mississippi, resolving an investigation into the operator’s violations of section 311 (Section 311) of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA). FERC faulted the operator for providing a Section 311 transportation service without timely filing a Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) and obtaining FERC’s approval for the transportation rates. Section 311 permits intrastate pipelines to transport interstate gas “on behalf of” interstate pipelines without becoming subject to FERC’s more extensive Natural Gas Act (NGA) jurisdiction, but requires the intrastate pipeline to have an SOC stating the rates and terms and conditions of service on file with FERC within 30 days of providing the interstate service. Under the NGPA, Section 311 rates must be “fair and equitable” and approved by FERC. In Skye, FERC stated that the operator began providing Section 311 service on certain pipeline segments in Mississippi in May 2023, following their acquisition from another Section 311 operator, but did not file an SOC with FERC until April 2025. The order ties the penalty to the approximately two-year delay between commencement of the Section 311 service and the SOC filing date. The pipeline operator was also ordered to provide an annual compliance report and to abide by additional verification requirements related to the filing of its FERC Form No. 549D, the Quarterly Transportation & Storage Report for Intrastate Natural Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

August 6, 2025

In Sierra Club v. FERC, No. 24-1199 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval of a 1,000-foot natural gas pipeline segment crossing the United States-Mexico border (the Border Pipeline) under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), rejecting environmental groups’ challenges that FERC improperly limited its analysis under both the NGA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as related to a 155-mile intrastate “Connector Pipeline” constructed upstream of the Border Pipeline in Texas.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 17, 2025

On July 15, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued an order1 proposing to eliminate the soft price cap of $1,000 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for bilateral spot sales in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) that was implemented following the California energy crisis. If adopted, the Commission’s proposal would eliminate the requirement that sellers make a filing with FERC cost justifying spot market sales in excess of the soft price cap, which have become increasingly common in recent years as market conditions have continued to tighten throughout the West. Eliminating the WECC soft price cap would provide sellers that make sales during periods when prices exceed the cap greater certainty that their sales will not be second guessed after the fact.

...

Read More

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

© 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.