Tenth Circuit Avoids Circuit Split in PURPA Dispute, Revives Federal Suit

Jun 30, 2021

Reading Time : 1 min

Passed by Congress in 1978 to promote renewable energy resources, PURPA directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to promulgate rules prohibiting utilities from engaging in price discrimination against small generating facilities called Qualifying Facilities (QFs1) and further directs state public utility commissions to implement FERC’s rules.2

PURPA provides both a federal and state enforcement mechanism.3 Over the years, courts have settled on a distinction between “as-applied” and “as-implemented” challenges, with the former falling under state jurisdiction and the latter falling under federal jurisdiction. An “as-applied” claim involves an allegation that a state or utility’s implementation of PURPA is unlawful as applied to the complaining person or persons, while “as-implemented” claims contend that a state or utility failed to implement the FERC rule lawfully.

In this case, the city of Farmington imposed additional charges on electric customers who produce their own power. A group of rooftop solar owners challenged the ordinance in federal district court in New Mexico, arguing that it violated FERC’s antiprice discrimination rules implementing PURPA.

Departing from the as-applied versus as-implemented framework, the district court had determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute because federal courts can only address whether a state “outright fail[ed] to implement a rule,” not whether the implementation was consistent with the FERC rule. Only state courts, according to the district court, have jurisdiction to ensure that a state or utility’s procedures actually comply with FERC’s regulations. If upheld on appeal, this interpretation of PURPA would have created a circuit split.

In Monday’s ruling, the 10th Circuit reversed. Looking primarily at the plain meaning of the word “implement,” the 10th Circuit reasoned that “it seems to us a non sequitur to claim that a utility can ‘implement’ a rule by issuing a regulation that is inconsistent with that rule.” Accordingly, the 10th Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court will evaluate the merits of the plaintiffs’ complaint regarding price discrimination.


1 16 U.S.C. §§ 824a-3(a)-(b).

2 Id. § 824a-3(f).

3 Id. §§ 824a-3(g)-(h).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

October 9, 2025

On October 1, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued Order No. 914 amending certain Commission regulations to incorporate a conditional sunset date in compliance with the Trump administration’s April 2025 Executive Order, “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy” (the EO).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

October 8, 2025

Akin is pleased to serve as a gold sponsor for Infocast’s Energy Independence Summit in Houston, October 21-23. Energy partner Charlie Ofner will moderate the Macroeconomics of Domestic Energy Independence panel, projects & energy transition partner Shariff Barakat will lead Opportunities in US Manufacturing: How Big, How Fast, How FEOC?, and counsel Taha Qureshi will guide the discussion on Cornerstones for Energy Independence: Investing in Grid Security & Cybersecurity.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

October 6, 2025

As of October 6, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) continues to operate despite the lapse in appropriations that resulted in a government shutdown on October 1, 2025. While FERC receives appropriations from Congress, it primarily is self-funded through fees and charges obtained from the industries it regulates, offsetting its total costs. Hence, during prior government shutdowns in 2018 and 2013, the agency was able to continue operations. However, FERC published a plan for operating in the event of a lapse in appropriations on September 30, 2025, available here

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

September 8, 2025

On September 4, 2025, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee convened a hearing to consider the nominations of Laura Swett and David LaCerte to serve as commissioners at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission). Swett is a former FERC Staff that served as legal and policy advisor to former FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre and Commission Bernard McNamee. LaCerte is an attorney in private practice that previously held positions at the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and the Louisiana Department of Veterans Affairs.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

September 9, 2025

On August 29, 2025, Christopher Wright, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a proposal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Organization Act), asking that FERC terminate its long-running proceeding in Docket No. PL18-1, which addresses proposed updates to its policy statement on the Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities. The docket resulted in a draft policy statement that has never been finalized, nor relied upon by FERC in a published order, but would require FERC to consider environmental impacts and potential mitigation prior to making a public interest determination under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). The Secretary asks FERC to rescind the draft policy statement in its entirety to remove any uncertainty in gas infrastructure development. Rescission would require FERC to initiate a new docket and develop a new record should it want to reinitiate similar policy changes in the future.

...

Read More

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

© 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.