- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Connecticut
- /
- Direct Energy Services, LLC v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
Direct Energy Services, LLC v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
Geography
Year
2020
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2020
Status
Trial court judgment for PURA affirmed.
Geography
Docket number
SC 20643
Court/admin entity
United States → State Courts → Connecticut Supreme Court (Conn.)
Case category
Constitutional Claims (US) → First Amendment (US)Constitutional Claims (US) → Other Constitutional Claims (US)
Principal law
United States → Commerce ClauseUnited States → Connecticut General Statutes-Public Service CompaniesUnited States → Contracts ClauseUnited States → First Amendment
At issue
Retail energy suppliers' challenge to geographic and marketing restrictions imposed by the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority on voluntary renewable offers (products consisting of renewable energy credits bundled with electric supply).
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Search results
07/05/2023
Trial court judgment for PURA affirmed.
The Connecticut Supreme Court rejected retail energy suppliers’ dormant Commerce Clause challenges to geographic and marketing restrictions imposed by the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) on “voluntary renewable offers” (VROs), which are products consisting of renewable energy credits (RECs) bundled with electric supply. Applying an analysis set forth by the Second Circuit in <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/allco-finance-ltd-v-klee/">Allco Finance Ltd. v. Klee</a>, the Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that the geographic restriction prohibiting VROs from containing RECs sourced outside designated geographic regions created a VRO product that could only be produced by renewable generators in the designated area to help advance Connecticut’s environmental goals, which included reducing local greenhouse gas emissions. Generators inside and outside the designated area therefore could not be considered similarly situated for purposes of a facial discrimination claim under the Commerce Clause. The court further found that the geographic restriction satisfied dormant Commerce Clause doctrine’s Pike balancing test because the restriction was not “clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits,” including local greenhouse gas reductions. The court also found that a marketing restriction requiring that suppliers inform consumers that a VRO backed by RECs is not itself renewable energy did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. In addition, the court held that the suppliers could not bring free speech and Contract Clause claims that they did not raise before PURA. The court also rejected a claim that administrative proceedings violated the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.
Decision
–
Summary
Retail energy suppliers' challenge to geographic and marketing restrictions imposed by the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority on voluntary renewable offers (products consisting of renewable energy credits bundled with electric supply).
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Finance