Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

North Dakota v. Heydinger

Geography
Year
2011
Document Type
Litigation
Part of

About this case

Filing year
2011
Status
Minnesota said it would not pursue appeal.
Docket number
14-2156, 14-2251
Court/admin entity
United StatesUnited States Federal CourtsUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (8th Cir.)
Case category
Carbon Offsets and Credits (US)Regulatory (US)Constitutional Claims (US)Commerce Clause (US)
Principal law
United StatesClean Air Act (CAA)United StatesCommerce ClauseUnited StatesFederal Power ActUnited StatesFourteenth AmendmentUnited StatesPrivileges and Immunities ClauseUnited StatesState Law—Miscellaneous StatutesMinnesota Next Generation Energy ActUnited StatesSupremacy Clause
At issue
Challenge to Minnesota law that prohibits importation of power from large energy facilities that would contribute to statewide greenhouse gas emissions.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
Search results
08/22/2016
Minnesota said it would not pursue appeal.
The Star Tribune reported that the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission had indicated that the State had decided not to pursue an appeal. The agencies stated that they "strongly disagree with the court’s ruling" but that "Minnesota has made significant gains with strong energy and environmental initiatives other than the specific provision of the law at issue in this case."
Other
06/29/2016
Motion for attorney fees filed.
After the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Minnesota’s low-carbon power law was unlawful, North Dakota and its co-plaintiffs asked the Eighth Circuit to remand the case to the federal district court for the District of Minnesota for a determination on their motion for attorney fees. The district court previously concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and the plaintiffs argued that they were also entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred during the appeal. The plaintiffs asserted that they had obtained all the relief they sought and prevailed in a case that asserted a substantial claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (based on the dormant Commerce Clause), that they had succeeded on their Section 1983 claim (even though the Eighth Circuit “proffered additional rationales for affirmance” based on preemption and only one judge based affirmance on the dormant Commerce Clause), and that they had succeeded on other claims (i.e., the preemption claims) that arose from the same nucleus of operative fact. On July 22, Law360 reported that Minnesota had decide to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court rather than seeking en banc rehearing from the Eighth Circuit.
Motion
06/15/2016
Opinion issued.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s conclusion that Minnesota’s Next Generation Energy Act (NGEA) was unlawful. The NGEA barred importing energy from a “new large energy facility” outside Minnesota or entering into new long-term power purchase agreements, where such activities would contribute to statewide carbon dioxide emissions. Only one judge on the Eighth Circuit panel agreed with the district court conclusion that the statute constituted impermissible extraterritorial regulation under the dormant Commerce Clause. The other two judges concluded that the law was preempted by the Federal Power Act, with one of the two judges also concluding that the law conflicted with the Clean Air Act. A blog post about this decision appears here.
Decision

Summary

Challenge to Minnesota law that prohibits importation of power from large energy facilities that would contribute to statewide greenhouse gas emissions.

 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
Policy instrument
Risk
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance