Clean-energy interests on Monday jumped into a Minnesota-North Dakota appellate court battle, hoping to reverse a federal court ruling that tossed out a 2007 Minnesota ban on new coal-fired electricity generation.
Nine environmental and renewable energy groups and two energy experts filed four friend-of-the court briefs with the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson's decision to strike down part of the Next Generation Energy Act.
In April, the judge sided with North Dakota's attorney general and coal and utility interests to declare unconstitutional the law's restrictions on new imports of coal-generated power. She said Minnesota violated the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause by regulating business activities of out-of-state utilities.
Minnesota appealed, and has argued that the judge got it wrong, partly because regulators haven't applied the 2007 law to utilities, including those complaining from North Dakota, a coal-mining state that relies on that fuel for nearly 80 percent of its electricity.
Although Midwest environmental groups earlier took part in the two-year-old legal fray, the ruling and the appeal have attracted national organizations. The American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association, both Washington, D.C.-based trade groups, jointly filed a brief taking Minnesota's side.
Ken Johnson, a spokesman for the solar industries group, said the ruling applied a part of the commerce clause in such a broad way that it could slow the development of clean energy and undermine state energy policies.
"This decision creates a lot of regulatory risk for energy markets and flies in the face of long-standing precedents of how energy markets are regulated and operate," Johnson said in an e-mail.
Federal ruling's effect
Scott Strand, an attorney for Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, a St. Paul-based nonprofit law firm, said the legal issues in the case "do have some impact potentially across the country." He predicted increased litigation over state utility policies if the ruling is upheld.