- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Invenergy Thermal LLC v. Watson
Collection
Invenergy Thermal LLC v. Watson
Invenergy Thermal LLC v. Sixkiller ↗
24-1027U.S.1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
03/24/2025
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
Petition for writ of certiorari filed.
The owners of a natural gas power plant in Washington filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider their claim that Washington’s Climate Commitment Act violates the dormant Commerce Clause by distributing “no-cost allowances” for power plants owned by in-state utilities while requiring the owners of independent power plants to purchase allowances. The petition presented the questions of whether Supreme Court precedent “immunizes State laws affecting utilities from challenge under the dormant Commerce Clause, even when those laws affect competitive markets” and whether “alleging interstate and market-wide consequences of a state law, including a protectionist effect, adequately alleges a burden on interstate commerce, as five Justices would have held in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023).”
Invenergy Thermal LLC v. Watson ↗
23-3857United States Ninth Circuit (9th Cir.)1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
12/24/2024
Decision
Dismissal affirmed.
In an unpublished memorandum, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a case brought by owners of a natural gas power plant in Washington challenging a provision of the Washington Climate Commitment Act that provides no-cost emissions allowances to electric utilities but requires non-utility owners of power plants to purchase allowances. Although the Ninth Circuit found that the district court had erred by addressing standing without providing the parties an opportunity to be heard and in finding that the power plant owners lacked standing, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the owners failed to state a viable dormant Commerce Clause or equal protection claim. Regarding the dormant Commerce Clause, the appellate court said the law did not discriminate against out-of-state entities because electric utilities and independent plant owners were not similarly situated, and that the law did not impose an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. Regarding equal protection, the court again noted that electric utilities and independent power plant owners are not similarly situated, which foreclosed the equal protection claim. In addition, the Ninth Circuit found that the owners did not negate Washington’s rational basis for the law, i.e., its “interest in balancing the rising cost of energy against the State’s desire to reduce greenhouse gases.”
Invenergy Thermal LLC v. Watson ↗
3:22-cv-05967W.D. Wash.5 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
11/03/2023
Decision
Claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.
The federal district court for the Western District of Washington ruled that neither an out-of-state company that alleged that it owned a Washington power plant through a chain of subsidiaries nor the in-state subsidiary that owned the power plant had standing for their constitutional challenges to the Washington Climate Commitment Act’s (CCA’s) allocation of greenhouse gas emissions allowances. The companies alleged that the CCA’s allocation of “no-cost” allowances to electric utilities but not to owners of electricity generating facilities violated the dormant Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The court held that the parent company lacked standing for either claim because it did not own the power plant, while the subsidiary lack standing for the dormant Commerce Clause claim because, as an in-state entity, it could not allege an injury in fact. The court concluded, moreover, that their dormant Commerce Clause claims would fail even if the companies had standing because they failed to allege that the CCA discriminated against out-of-state economic interests on its face or in purpose or effect. In addition, the equal protection claim would fail because utilities and electricity generating facility owners are not similarly situated and because the different treatment of utilities and owners of electricity generating facilities was rationally related to the legitimate government purpose of mitigating the cost of electricity sold to public consumers.
02/16/2023
Motion To Dismiss
Motion to dismiss filed.
The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the law’s benefits flow to both in-state and out-of-state entities and the compliance burdens fall equally on all electricity generators. The defendant also argued that the plaintiffs could not establish they were similarly situated to public utilities and could not show that any impact on interstate commerce outweighed the benefit of minimizing impacts on Washington consumers’ energy costs.