North Dakota v. Heydinger, No. 14-2156 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit against the state claiming, inter alia, that the prohibitions in the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act, Minn. Stat. 216H.03, subd. 3(2) and (3), violate the Commerce Clause. The statute is intended to reduce statewide power sector carbon dioxide emissions by prohibiting utilities from meeting Minnesota demand with electricity generated by a new large energy facility in a transaction that will contribute to or increase statewide power sector carbon dioxide emissions. The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment and a permanent injunction. The court concluded that plaintiffs meet the Article III standing requirement where Plaintiff Basin can demonstrate a probable economic injury resulting from governmental action; plaintiffs' claims are ripe for judicial review because the issues are predominately legal, and the challenged prohibitions are currently causing hardship by interfering with the ability of plaintiffs such as Basin to plan, invest in, and conduct their business operations; the district court did not err in declining to abstain under Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co.; the district court correctly concluded that the challenged prohibitions have the practical effect of controlling conduct beyond the boundaries of Minnesota; the statute has extraterritorial reach and will impose Minnesota’s policy of increasing the cost of electricity by restricting use of the currently most cost-efficient sources of generating capacity from prohibited sources anywhere in the grid, absent Minnesota regulatory approval or the dismantling of the federally encouraged and approved MISO transmission system; Minnesota may not do this without the approval of Congress; and the district court did not err by enjoining the defendant state officials from enforcing the prohibitions. The court dismissed plaintiffs' cross-appeal as moot.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Murphy and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Constitutional law. In action by out-of-state utilities to declare unconstitutional Sections 216H.03, subd. 3(2)and (3) of the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act which ban importation of power that would increase statewide power sector carbon dioxide emissions, the district court did not err in finding the utilities had standing to pursue the action and that the matter was ripe for review; nor did the court err in declining to abstain under the Pullman doctrine; the district court did not err in determining that the challenged prohibitions have the practical effect of controlling conduct beyond the boundaries of Minnesota; the law therefore has extraterritorial reach and will prevent utilities from adding capacity from prohibited sources anywhere on the grid, absent Minnesota regulatory approval or a dismantling of the federally encouraged and approved power network transmission system; Minnesota may not do this without approval of Congress, and the district court did not err in enjoining enforcement of the sections; plaintiffs' cross-appeal was mooted by the district court's entry of an order regarding attorney fees while the matter was pending on appeal. Judge Murphy, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.