town of barnstable v. o'connor, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Town of Barnstable v. O'Connor, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/27

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1597

TOWN OF BARNSTABLE,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

HYANNI S MARI NA, I NC. ; MARJ ON PRI NT AND FRAME SHOP LTD. ; THEKELLER COMPANY, I NC. ; ALLI ANCE TO PROTECT NANTUCKET SOUND; SANDRA

P. TAYLOR; J AMI E REGAN,

Pl ai nt i f f s,

v.

ANGELA M. O' CONNOR, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as Chai r of t heMassachuset t s Depar t ment of Publ i c Ut i l i t i es; J OLETTE A.

WESTBROOK, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as Commi ssi oner of t heMassachuset t s Depart ment of Publ i c Ut i l i t i es; ROBERT HAYDEN, i n

hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as Commi ssi oner of t he Massachuset t sDepar t ment of Publ i c Ut i l i t i es; J UDI TH J UDSON, i n her of f i ci al

capaci t y as Commi ss i oner of t he Massachuset t s Depar t ment ofEner gy Resour ces; CAPE WI ND ASSOCI ATES, LLC;

NSTAR ELECTRI C COMPANY,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

No. 14- 1598

HYANNI S MARI NA, I NC. ; J AMI E REGAN; ALLI ANCE TO PROTECT NANTUCKETSOUND,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s,

MARJ ON PRI NT AND FRAME SHOP LTD. ; THE KELLER COMPANY, I NC. ;SANDRA P. TAYLOR; TOWN OF BARNSTABLE,

Pl ai nt i f f s,

v.

ANGELA M. O' CONNOR, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as Chai r of t heMassachuset t s Depar t ment of Publ i c Ut i l i t i es; J OLETTE A.


2/27

WESTBROOK, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as Commi ssi oner of t heMassachuset t s Depart ment of Publ i c Ut i l i t i es; ROBERT HAYDEN, i n

hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as Commi ssi oner of t he Massachuset t sDepar t ment of Publ i c Ut i l i t i es; J UDI TH J UDSON, i n her of f i ci al

capaci t y as Commi ss i oner of t he Massachuset t s Depar t ment ofEner gy Resour ces; CAPE WI ND ASSOCI ATES, LLC; NSTAR ELECTRI C

COMPANY,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Ri char d G. St ear ns, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,St ahl and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

I r a H. Zal ezni k, J oshua M. D. Segal , and Lawson & Wei t zen LLP,on br i ef f or appel l ant Town of Bar nst abl e.

Mat t hew E. Pr i ce, wi t h whomAdamG. Uni kowsky, J enner & Bl ockLLP, Rober t A. Bi anchi , and Rober t A. Bi anchi & Associ at es, wer e onbr i ef , f or appel l ant s Hyanni s Mar i na, I nc. , J ami e Regan, andAl l i ance t o Pr ot ect Nant ucket Sound.

Laur ence H. Tr i be, J onat han S. Massey, and Massey & Gai l LLP,on br i ef f or appel l ant Al l i ance t o Pr ot ect Nant ucket Sound.Ti mot hy J . Casey, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , wi t h whomMar t ha

Coakl ey, At t or ney Gener al of Massachuset t s, was on br i ef , f orappel l ees Angel a M. O' Connor , J ol et t e A. West br ook, Rober t Hayden,and J udi t h J udson.

Davi d S. Rosenzwei g, wi t h whom Er i ka J . Haf ner , Mi chael J .Koehl er , Keegan Wer l i n LLP, Ger al di ne E. Edens, Chr i st opherMar r ar o, and Baker & Host et l er LLP, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l eeCape Wi nd Associ at es, LLC.

J ohn D. Donovan, J r . , Mat t hew L. McGi nni s, and Ropes & Gr ayLLP, on br i ef f or appel l ee NSTAR El ect r i c Company.

May 18, 2015


3/27

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Thi s appeal ar i ses f r om t he

l at est i n a ser i es of l awsui t s by opponent s of a pr oposed of f - shor e

wi nd power gener at i on f aci l i t y i n Nant ucket Sound. Pl ai nt i f f s- - who

i ncl ude t he Town of Barnst abl e, a non- pr of i t advocacy gr oup named

Al l i ance t o Pr ot ect Nant ucket Sound, and busi nesses and i ndi vi dual s

r esi di ng near t he pr oposed f aci l i t y1- sought an i nj unct i on and a

decl ar at or y j udgment i n f eder al di st r i ct cour t agai nst of f i ci al s of

t he Massachuset t s Depar t ment of Publ i c Ut i l i t i es ( "DPU") and t he

Massachuset t s Depar t ment of Energy Resour ces ( "DOER") ( t ogether ,

t he "st at e def endant s" ) , 2 and t wo pr i vat e part i es, Cape Wi nd

Associ at es, LLC and NSTAR El ect r i c Company, 3 whose cont r act t o buy

wi nd power DPU appr oved. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed def endant s'

mot i ons t o di smi ss af t er determi ni ng t hat t he El event h Amendment

pr ecl uded t he asser t i on of f eder al cour t j ur i sdi ct i on. For t he

1 The ot her pl ai nt i f f s ar e Hyanni s Mar i na, I nc. , Mar j onPr i nt and Fr ame Shop Lt d. , The Kel l er Company, I nc. , Sandr a P.Tayl or , and J ami e Regan.

2 The st at e def endant s ar e Angel a M. O' Connor , i n herof f i ci al capaci t y as Chai r of DPU; J ol et t e A. West br ook and Rober tHayden, i n t hei r of f i ci al capaci t i es as Commi ssi oner s of DPU; andJ udi t h J udson, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as Commi ssi oner of DOER.The of f i cehol ders f or t he above- l i st ed posi t i ons have changedmul t i pl e t i mes dur i ng t hi s appeal . We l i st t he cur r entof f i cehol der s i n accor dance wi t h Feder al Rul e of Appel l at e

Pr ocedur e 43( c) ( 2) , whi ch pr ovi des t hat " [ w] hen a publ i c of f i cerwho i s a par t y t o an appeal . . . ceases t o hol d of f i ce,. . . [ t ] he publ i c of f i cer ' s successor i s aut omat i cal l y subst i t ut edas a par t y. "

3 Cape Wi nd and NSTAR were added as r equi r ed par t i espur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 19( a) .

-3-


4/27

r easons expl ai ned bel ow, we di sagree t hat t he El event h Amendment

bar s the asser t i on of f eder al cour t j ur i sdi cti on over pl ai nt i f f s'

cl ai ms, and we r emand f or r esol ut i on of t he case' s st at us and t he

possi bl e need t o r esol ve a l i t any of ot her i ssues concer ni ng t he

vi abi l i t y of t he compl ai nt .

I. Background4

Cape Wi nd has pur sued devel opment of of f shor e wi nd power

i n Nant ucket Sound si nce at l east 2001. See Al l i ance t o Pr otect

Nant ucket Sound, I nc. v. U. S. Dep' t of t he Ar my, 288 F. Supp. 2d

64, 67 ( D. Mass. 2003) . The company has f aced a ser i es of

chal l enges agai nst i t s at t empt s t o acqui r e t he necessar y per mi t s

and appr oval s f or a pl anned 130- t ur bi ne, t went y- f i ve squar e mi l e

f aci l i t y i n t he Sound. See Town of Bar nst abl e v. Ber wi ck, 17 F.

Supp. 3d 113, 11620 ( D. Mass. 2014) .

Cape Wi nd' s ef f or t s at convi nci ng el ectr i c ut i l i t i es

( al so known as " el ect r i c di st r i but i on compani es") t o pur chase i t s

wi nd energy r ecei ved a boost i n 2008, when t he Massachuset t s

l egi sl atur e enacted t he Gr een Communi t i es Act ( t he "GCA") . 2008

Mass. Act s ch. 169 ( "An Act Rel at i ve t o Gr een Communi t i es" ) .

Sect i on 83 of t he GCA r equi r es each Massachuset t s el ect r i c ut i l i t y

t o "sol i ci t pr oposal s f r om r enewabl e ener gy devel oper s and . . .

ent er i nt o cost - ef f ect i ve l ong- t er mcont r act s" wi t h such devel oper s

4 Our r eci t al of t he f act s t r aces t he al l egat i ons i n t hecompl ai nt , al t hough f or cont ext we f l esh out t he st or y i t t el l swi t h some addi t i onal f act s f r om t he recor d.

-4-


5/27

f or up t o t hr ee per cent of t he t ot al ener gy demand i n t he ut i l i t y' s

ser vi ce t er r i t or y. I d. at 83. Sect i on 83 f ur t her pr ovi des t hat

" [ t ] he t i met abl e and met hod f or sol i ci t at i on and execut i on of such

cont r act s shal l be pr oposed by t he di st r i but i on company i n

consul t at i on wi t h [ DOER] and shal l be subj ect t o revi ew and

appr oval by [ DPU] . " I d.

As or i gi nal l y enact ed, Sect i on 83 per mi t t ed Massachuset t s

ut i l i t i es t o f ul f i l l t hei r r enewabl e ener gy obl i gat i on onl y by

ent er i ng i nt o cont r act s f or power gener at ed "wi t hi n t he

j ur i sdi ct i onal boundar i es of t he commonweal t h, i ncl udi ng st at e

wat er s, or i n adj acent f eder al wat er s. " I d. I n 2009, whi l e t hat

geogr aphi c l i mi t at i on was st i l l i n pl ace, Cape Wi nd ent er ed i nt o

no- bi d negot i at i ons wi t h Nat i onal Gr i d- - a compet i t or of NSTAR

oper at i ng i n Massachuset t s- - f or Nat i onal Gr i d' s pur chase of f i f t y

per cent of t he wi nd energy gener at ed by Cape Wi nd' s pr oposed

f aci l i t y. Cape Wi nd and Nat i onal Gr i d l at er execut ed a cont r act ,

whi ch t hey cal l ed a Power Pur chase Agr eement ( "PPA") . Accor di ng t o

pl ai nt i f f s' compl ai nt , "[ t ] he Nat i onal Gr i d cont r act pr i ces wer e

si gni f i cant l y above t he mar ket pr i ce f or el ect r i ci t y and above t he

pr i ce of ot her r enewabl e ener gy gener at i on. "

I n 2010, a Canadi an ener gy generat or named Tr ansCanada

Power Market i ng sued DPU, al l egi ng t hat Sect i on 83' s geogr aphi c

l i mi t at i on unconst i t ut i onal l y di scr i mi nat ed agai nst i nt er st at e

commerce i n vi ol at i on of t he dor mant Commerce Cl ause. DPU set t l ed

-5-


6/27

t he sui t by suspendi ng t he geogr aphi c l i mi t at i on5 and di r ect i ng

ut i l i t i es such as NSTAR t o reopen bi ddi ng oppor t uni t i es t o out - of -

st at e gener at or s. DPU di d not , however , r equi r e Nat i onal Gr i d t o

back out of i t s agr eement wi t h Cape Wi nd. DPU i nst ead approved t he

Cape Wi nd- Nat i onal Gr i d PPA i n DPU Or der 10- 54. 6 See DPU Or der 10-

54 ( Nov. 22, 2010) ( f i nal or der ) .

NSTAR, f or i t s par t , subsequent l y recei ved bi ds f r om

f or t y- f our r enewabl e ener gy devel oper s and ent er ed cont r act s wi t h

t hr ee l and- based wi nd gener at or s, one l ocat ed i n- st at e and two out -

5 The geogr aphi c l i mi t at i on was i ni t i al l y suspended byEmergency Regul at i on. DPU l at er made t he Emergency Regul at i onsper manent , see 220 Mass. Code Regs. 17. 0017. 09, and theMassachuset t s l egi sl at ur e subsequent l y r emoved t he l i mi t at i on f r omt he st at ute by amendment , see 2012 Mass. Act s ch. 209, 35 ( "AnAct Rel at i ve t o Compet i t i vel y Pr i ced El ect r i ci t y i n t heCommonweal t h") .

6 DPU' s appr oval of t he Cape Wi nd- Nat i onal Gr i d PPA was

unsuccessf ul l y chal l enged by t he Al l i ance bef or e t he Massachuset t sSupr eme J udi ci al Cour t , Al l i ance t o Pr ot ect Nant ucket Sound, I nc.v. Dep' t of Pub. Ut i l s. , 461 Mass. 166, 16768, 189 ( 2011) , and bya separ at e gr oup of pl ai nt i f f s bef or e t he Feder al Ener gy Regul at or yCommi ssi on ( "FERC") , Cal i f or ni ans f or Renewabl e Ener gy, I nc.( Care) , 137 FERC 61, 113 (Nov. 7, 2011) ( Or der Di smi ssi ngCompl ai nt ) ( t he "Car e Compl ai nt " ) .

The Massachuset t s SJ C r ej ect ed t he Al l i ance' s ar gument t hatt he f act t hat t he geogr aphi c l i mi t at i on was st i l l i n ef f ect"' t ai nt ed' t he cont r act i ng pr ocess and [ DPU' s] appr oval of [ t hePPA] i n vi ol at i on of t he commer ce cl ause, " f i ndi ng i nst ead t hat"Nat i onal Gr i d ent er ed i nt o [ t he PPA] f or r easons unr el at ed t o t he

geogr aphi c l i mi t at i on pr ovi si on" and thus t her e was no commer cecl ause vi ol at i on. Al l i ance, 561 Mass. at 17274. The CareCompl ai nt , accor di ng to FERC, "consi st [ ed] of a st r i ng of vague andunsuppor t ed al l egat i ons t hat [ DPU' s] or der vi ol at es t he [ Feder alPower Act ] , [ Publ i c Ut i l i t y Regul at or y Pol i ci es Act ] and pr evi ous[ FERC] order s, " none of whi ch had mer i t . 137 FERC 61, 113 atpara. 32.

-6-


7/27

of - st at e. Accor di ng t o t he compl ai nt , NSTAR cont r act ed t o buy

ener gy wi t h t hose thr ee compani es at hal f t he i ni t i al pr i ce Cape

Wi nd was char gi ng Nat i onal Gr i d pur suant t o t he Cape Wi nd- Nat i onal

Gr i d PPA.

Lat er i n 2010, NSTAR f i l ed an appl i cat i on wi t h DPU

r equest i ng t hat i t appr ove NSTAR' s proposed merger wi t h Nor t heast

Ut i l i t i es, a Connect i cut - based el ect r i c ut i l i t y di st r i but i on

company. 7 At t he t i me, DPU appl i ed a "no net harm" st andard i n

assessi ng merger appl i cat i ons, meani ng t hat mergers woul d be

appr oved so l ong as t he publ i c i nt er est "woul d be at l east as wel l

served by appr oval of a pr oposal as by i t s deni al . " See D. P. U.

Or der 10- 170 ( Mar . 10, 2011) ( i nt er l ocut or y or der on st andar d of

r evi ew) . Cape Wi nd and DOER, among ot her s, i ntervened i n t he DPU

pr oceedi ng. DOER pr oposed a more st r i ngent " subst ant i al net

benef i t " st andard that woul d take i nt o account " t he advancement of

cl ean energy goal s est abl i shed by t he [ GCA] and the Gl obal Warmi ng

Sol ut i ons Act [ ' GWSA' ] . " DOER al so asked DPU t o r equi r e NSTAR t o

pur chase of f - shor e wi nd ener gy as a condi t i on f or appr ovi ng t he

mer ger wi t h Nor t heast Ut i l i t i es.

Af t er t aki ng t he par t i es' and i nt er venor s' posi t i ons

under advi sement , DPU chose t o adopt a "net benef i t " st andard f or

7 DPU appr oval i s r equi r ed f or al l mer ger s of ut i l i t i essubj ect t o i t s j ur i sdi ct i on. Mass Gen. Laws ch. 164, 96 ( 2012) .Appr oval i s onl y per mi t t ed i f DPU f i nds t he mer ger i s " consi st entwi t h t he publ i c i nt er est . " I d.

-7-


8/27

el ect r i c ut i l i t y mer ger s, whi ch was more demandi ng t han t he

exi st i ng "no net har m" st andar d but l ess st r i ngent t han t he

"subst ant i al net benef i t " st andar d t hat DOER r equest ed. DPU

j ust i f i ed t he new st andar d i n par t by poi nt i ng out t hat t hi s was

i t s f i r st oppor t uni t y t o consi der a mer ger of el ect r i c ut i l i t i es

si nce t he Massachuset t s l egi sl at ur e enact ed ( 1) t he GCA, whi ch

speci f i cal l y pr ovi ded t hat DPU, i n r evi ewi ng a mer ger t r ansact i on,

must consi der whet her t he mer ger wi l l cont r i but e to a " r el i abl e,

cost ef f ect i ve ener gy del i ver y syst em, " 2008 Mass. Act s ch. 169,

69, amendi ng Mass . Gen. Laws ch. 164, 96, and ( 2) t he GWSA,

whi ch r equi r ed t hat al l Massachuset t s st at e agenci es "consi der

r easonabl y f or eseeabl e cl i mat e change i mpact s" i n i ssui ng

admi ni st r at i ve appr oval s and deci si ons, 2008 Mass. Act s ch. 298,

7, amendi ng Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30, 61. DPU r easoned t hat

t hese l egi sl at i ve changes r equi r ed i t t o put mor e emphasi s on t he

"benef i t s" si de of t he equat i on t han i t had i n t he past .

DOER t hen moved f or a st ay of t he merger proceedi ng,

ost ensi bl y so t hat i t coul d det er mi ne t he ef f ect t he mer ger woul d

have on consumer s' ut i l i t y r at es. NSTAR and Nor t heast Ut i l i t i es

cont est ed t he st ay, i nf or mi ng DPU t hat t he del ay j eopar di zed t he

merger agr eement due t o t he agr eement ' s i nt ernal deadl i nes and

evol vi ng ci r cumst ances t hat coul d "af f ect t he f i nanci al

under pi nni ngs of t he t r ansact i on. " The compl ai nt al l eges that t he

f or egoi ng act i ons of DOER r epr esent ed an " i mpl i ci t t hr eat t o

-8-


9/27

scut t l e t he mer ger unl ess NSTAR ent er ed i nt o a cont r act wi t h Cape

Wi nd. "

Of cour se, i t was DPU, not DOER, t hat got t o deci de

whet her and on what t erms t he merger woul d be appr oved.

Never t hel ess, t he t heor y of t he compl ai nt i s t hat DOER' s

pol i t i cal l y potent advocacy was enough of a thr eat t o cause NSTAR

t o ent er i nt o "secr et negot i at i ons" wi t h t he Massachuset t s

Gover nor ' s admi ni st r at i on i n or der t o wi n t he admi ni st r at i on' s

suppor t f or NSTAR' s mer ger wi t h Nor t heast Ut i l i t i es. Those

negot i at i ons cul mi nated on Febr uary 15, 2012, wi t h a set t l ement

agr eement bet ween NSTAR and DOER.

The set t l ement agreement i ncl uded, among ot her

pr ovi si ons, a cl ause t hat NSTAR woul d pur chase 27. 5%of Cape Wi nd' s

out put under a pr oposed f i f t een- year power pur chase agr eement ( " t he

PPA" ) , and a cl ause st at i ng t hat DOER agr eed t hat t he merger " i s

consi st ent wi t h t he publ i c i nt er est . " Under the set t l ement

agr eement , Cape Wi nd and NSTAR' s cont r act woul d cont ai n t erms

subst ant i al l y t he same as t he t er ms of t he Cape Wi nd- Nat i onal Gr i d

PPA. Per f ormance of t hat cont r act woul d cause NSTAR' s renewabl e

ener gy usage t o r i se f r om 1. 6% t o 3. 5% of i t s t ot al pr oducti on

por t f ol i o, t hus exceedi ng Sect i on 83' s st at ut or y t hr eshol d. The

pr oposed cont r act was cont i ngent upon, among ot her t hi ngs, Cape

Wi nd' s t i mel y pr ocur ement of f i nanci ng and bui l di ng per mi t s, DPU' s

appr oval of t he PPA i t sel f , and FERC' s appr oval of t he PPA' s r at es.

-9-


10/27

On Febr uary 24, 2012, af t er ent er i ng t he set t l ement agr eement ,

NSTAR, Cape Wi nd, and DOER submi t t ed a Memor andumof Under st andi ng

( "MOU") t o DPU seeki ng approval of a met hod and t i met abl e f or

negot i at i ng t he Cape Wi nd- NSTAR PPA. DPU appr oved t he MOU ( but not

yet t he PPA i t sel f ) on March 22, 2012, see DPU Or der 12- 19 ( Mar .

22, 2012) ( f i nal order ) , and Cape Wi nd and NSTAR execut ed t he PPA

t he next day. On Apr i l 4, 2012, DPU approved NSTAR' s merger wi t h

Nat i onal Gr i d. See DPU Or der 10- 170- B ( Apr . 4, 2012) ( f i nal

or der ) .

Af t er t hr ee publ i c comment hear i ngs and t wo evi dent i ary

hear i ngs, DPU i ssued a f i nal deci si on on November 26, 2012,

appr ovi ng t he Cape Wi nd- NSTAR PPA. See DPU Or der 12- 30 ( Nov. 26,

2012) ( f i nal or der ) ( her ei naf t er " Or der 12- 30") . Pur suant t o Or der

12- 30, DPU has an ongoi ng r esponsi bi l i t y to revi ew NSTAR' s r ecover y

of above- mar ket cost s i n i t s annual r econci l i at i on f i l i ngs.

Accor di ng t o t he PPA i t sel f , DPU wi l l al so ser ve as t he ar bi t er f or

det er mi ni ng when "Physi cal Const r uct i on" of t he Nant ucket Sound

f aci l i t y commences under t he PPA. The PPA pr ovi des t hat i f Cape

Wi nd f ai l s t o begi n Physi cal Const r uct i on pr i or t o December 31,

2015, NSTAR "shal l t ermi nat e" t he PPA on t hat dat e.

Pl ai nt i f f s decl i ned t o appeal Or der 12- 30 di r ect l y t o t he

Massachuset t s Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t , as was t hei r r i ght under

-10-


11/27

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 25 5, 8 and i nst ead f i l ed t hi s acti on i n

f eder al di st r i ct cour t f our t een mont hs l at er , cl ai mi ng t hat t hey

woul d i ncur hi gher el ect r i ci t y rat es under t he PPA and suf f er

"negat i ve i mpact s t o the envi r onment , r egi onal economy, hi st or i c

and cul t ur al r esour ces, publ i c saf et y, and r ecreat i onal

oppor t uni t i es. "

Pl ai nt i f f s' compl ai nt sought "a decl ar at i on t hat t he

Commonweal t h of Massachuset t s vi ol at ed bot h t he dormant Commer ce

Cl ause and the Supr emacy Cl ause when i t used i t s i nf l uence over

NSTAR' s merger r equest t o br i ng about NSTAR' s ent r y i nt o an above-

mar ket whol esal e el ect r i ci t y cont r act wi t h Cape Wi nd, " and

"appr opr i at e i nj unct i ve r el i ef t o r emedy t he const i t ut i onal

vi ol at i on and i nval i dat e the cont r act t hat Massachuset t s compel l ed

NSTAR t o ent er . " Mor e speci f i cal l y, Count 1 of t he compl ai nt

al l eged that by "r equi r i ng" NSTAR t o ent er t he PPA wi t h a

par t i cul ar par t y at a par t i cul ar pr i ce i nst ead of al l owi ng NSTAR t o

f r eel y negot i at e t he cont r act , DOER "vi ol at ed f eder al l aw and

pol i cy whi ch r equi r es whol esal e el ect r i c ener gy pr i ces t o be set

pur suant t o f r eel y- negot i at ed mar ket t r ansact i ons. " 9 Count 2

8 "An appeal as t o mat t er s of l aw f r om any f i nal deci si on,or der or r ul i ng of [ DPU] may be taken t o t he supr eme j udi ci al cour t

by an aggr i eved par t y i n i nt er est by t he f i l i ng of a wr i t t enpet i t i on pr ayi ng t hat t he or der of [ DPU] be modi f i ed or set asi dei n whol e or i n par t . " I d.

9 The Federal Power Act pl aces t he r egul at i on of i nt er st at ewhol esal e el ect r i c ener gy t r ansmi ssi on and r at es excl usi vel y underf eder al cont r ol . See 16 U. S. C. 824( a) and ( b) ; Nant ahal a Power

-11-


12/27

al l eged t hat " [ b] y condi t i oni ng i t s appr oval of t he mer ger on t he

execut i on of a PPA bet ween NSTAR and Cape Wi nd, DOER prevent ed out -

of - st at e gener at i on f aci l i t i es f r omcompet i ng wi t h Cape Wi nd, " and

"[ t ] her ef or e, DOER' s act i ons had a di scr i mi nat or y ef f ect on out - of -

st at e busi ness and vi ol at ed t he dormant Commerce Cl ause. " 10

The st at e def endant s ( col l ect i vel y) , Cape Wi nd, and NSTAR

each submi t t ed t hei r own mot i ons seeki ng di smi ssal on gr ounds of

sover ei gn i mmuni t y, pr ecl usi on, l ack of r i peness, and pl ai nt i f f s'

f ai l ur e t o st at e a pl ausi bl e cl ai m under ei t her t he Supr emacy or

Commer ce Cl ause. The di st r i ct cour t , i n an opi ni on we descr i be i n

more det ai l bel ow, det er mi ned t hat " t he debate begi ns and ends wi t h

t he El event h Amendment , " and hel d t hat soverei gn i mmuni t y bar r ed

t he cour t ' s j ur i sdi ct i on t o hear pl ai nt i f f s ' cl ai ms. I n a ser i es

of f oot not es, t he di st r i ct cour t al so expr essed doubt s about

whet her pl ai nt i f f s had st andi ng t o pr ess t hei r cl ai ms and t he

mer i t s of t hei r under l yi ng subst ant i ve al l egat i ons. Thi s t i mel y

& Li ght Co. v. Thor nbur g, 476 U. S. 953, 966 ( 1986) . As t he Thi r dCi r cui t r ecent l y expl ai ned, "[ w] hi l e FERC once di r ect l y consi der edwhet her t he whol esal e r at es submi t t ed t o i t wer e ' j ust andr easonabl e, ' " t he agency now " f avors usi ng market mechani sms t opr oduce compet i t i ve r at es f or i nt er st at e sal es and t r ansmi ssi ons ofenergy. " PPL Energypl us, LLC v. Sol omon, 766 F. 3d 241, 247 ( 3dCi r . 2014) .

10 The cl ause of t he Const i t ut i on grant i ng Congr ess t hepower t o r egul at e i nt er st at e commer ce, U. S. Const . ar t . I , 8, cl .3, "embodi es a negat i ve aspect as wel l - - t he ' dormant CommerceCl ause, ' " whi ch "pr ohi bi t s pr ot ect i oni st st at e r egul at i on desi gnedt o benef i t i n- st at e economi c i nt er est s by bur deni ng out - of - st at ecompet i t ors. " Al l i ance of Aut o. Mf r s. v. Gwadosky, 430 F. 3d 30, 35( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

-12-


13/27

appeal f r om t he di str i ct cour t ' s di smi ssal wi t h pr ej udi ce

f ol l owed. 11

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

A di st r i ct cour t ' s di smi ssal f or l ack of subj ect mat t er

j ur i sdi ct i on under Federal Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedure 12( b) ( 1) i s

r evi ewed de novo. See Mur phy v. Uni t ed St at es, 45 F. 3d 520, 522

( 1st Ci r . 1995) . As when we r evi ew a di smi ssal f or f ai l ur e t o

st at e a cl ai m under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , "we

const r ue t he Compl ai nt l i ber al l y and t r eat al l wel l - pl eaded f act s

as t r ue, accor di ng t he pl ai nt i f f [ s] t he benef i t of al l r easonabl e

i nf er ences. " I d. ; accor d Negr on- Gazt ambi de v. Her nandez- Tor r es, 35

F. 3d 25, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) .

B. Sovereign Immunity

1. The Applicable Law

The El event h Amendment of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on

pr ovi des t hat "[ t ] he j udi ci al power of t he Uni t ed St at es shal l not

be const r ued t o ext end t o any sui t i n l aw or equi t y, commenced or

pr osecut ed agai nst one of t he Uni t ed St at es by Ci t i zens of anot her

St at e, or by Ci t i zens or Subj ect s of any For ei gn St at e. " U. S.

Const . amend XI . "Long i nt er pr et ed as an af f i r mat i on of st at e

sover ei gn i mmuni t y[ , ] . . . [ t he] amendment ( despi t e i t s l i t er al

11 The Town of Bar nst abl e and t he Al l i ance ( j oi ned byHyanni s Mar i na, I nc. and J ami e Regan) f i l ed separat e not i ces ofappeal , whi ch we consol i dated.

-13-


14/27

t ext ) al so bar [ s] a ci t i zen f r om br i ngi ng a f eder al cour t acti on

agai nst hi s or her own St at e, " Maysonet - Robl es v. Cabr er o, 323

F. 3d 43, 48 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( ci t at i on and f oot not e omi t t ed) ,

i ncl udi ng i nst r ument al i t i es of t he st at e, such as st at e agenci es,

see Regent s of t he Uni v. of Cal . v. Doe, 519 U. S. 425, 42930

( 1997) .

Br oad as i t may seem, "[ t ] hi s pr oscr i pt i on i s subj ect t o

a wel l r ecogni zed except i on memor i al i zed i n Ex part e Young, " 209

U. S. 123, 15960 ( 1908) , whi ch permi t s " f eder al cour t s,

notwi t hst andi ng t he absence of consent , wai ver or evi dence of

congr essi onal asser t i on of nat i onal hegemony, [ t o] enj oi n st at e

of f i ci al s t o conf or mf ut ur e conduct t o t he r equi r ement s of f eder al

l aw. " Rosi e D. ex r el . J ohn D. v. Swi f t , 310 F. 3d 230, 234 ( 1st

Ci r . 2002) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . A "pi vot al quest i on" under Ex par t e Young i s whet her t he

r el i ef "ser ves di r ect l y t o br i ng an end t o a pr esent vi ol at i on of

f eder al l aw. " Whal en v. Mass. Tr i al Cour t , 397 F. 3d 19, 29 ( 1st

Ci r . 2005) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The except i on

memor i al i zed i n Ex par t e Young, i n t ur n, i t sel f has except i ons.

The Const i t ut i on does not permi t r el i ef t hat "woul d have much t he

same ef f ect as a f ul l - f l edged awar d of damages or r est i t ut i on by

t he f eder al cour t , t he l at t er ki nds of r el i ef bei ng of cour se

pr ohi bi t ed by t he El event h Amendment . " Mi l l s v. Mai ne, 118 F. 3d

37, 55 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ( quot i ng

-14-


15/27

Gr een v. Mansour , 474 U. S. 64, 73 ( 1985) ) ; see al so Edel man v.

J or dan, 415 U. S. 651, 668 ( 1974) . And Congr ess may r ender t he Ex

par t e Young except i on i nappl i cabl e by "pr escr i b[ i ng] a det ai l ed

r emedi al scheme f or t he enf orcement agai nst a St at e of a

st at ut or i l y creat ed r i ght . " Semi nol e Tr i be of Fl a. v. Fl or i da, 517

U. S. 44, 74 ( 1996) .

I n Ver i zon Mar yl and, I nc. v. Publ i c Ser vi ce Commi ssi on of

Mar yl and, 535 U. S. 635 ( 2002) , wher e, as her e, pl ai nt i f f s sued a

st at e regul at or y commi ssi on f or i ssui ng an or der t hat was al l egedl y

pr eempt ed by f ederal l aw, t he Supr eme Cour t ar t i cul ated t he

sover ei gn i mmuni t y i nqui r y as f ol l ows: " I n det er mi ni ng whet her t he

doct r i ne of Ex par t e Young avoi ds an El event h Amendment bar t o

sui t , a cour t need onl y conduct a st r ai ght f or war d i nqui r y i nt o

whet her [ t he] compl ai nt al l eges an ongoi ng vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw

and seeks r el i ef pr oper l y char act er i zed as pr ospect i ve. " I d. at

645 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The Cour t r easoned t hat a r equest " t hat st at e of f i ci al s be

r est r ai ned f r omenf or ci ng an or der i n cont r avent i on of cont r ol l i ng

f eder al l aw . . . cl ear l y sat i sf i es our ' str ai ght f or war d i nqui r y. ' "

Ver i zon, 535 U. S. at 646. Mor eover , a decl ar at i on of t he "past , as

wel l as t he f ut ur e, i nef f ect i veness of t he [ st at e commi ssi on' s]

act i on" was not bar r ed because i t di d "not i mpose upon t he St ate ' a

monet ar y l oss r esul t i ng f r om a past br each of a l egal dut y on t he

-15-


16/27

par t of t he def endant st at e of f i ci al s. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Edel man, 415

U. S. at 668) .

Cr i t i cal l y f or our deci si on i n t hi s case, t he Supr eme

Cour t i n Ver i zon al so expr essl y r ej ect ed t he Four t h Ci r cui t ' s

suggest i on t hat t he cl ai m coul d not be br ought due t o t he l at t er ' s

vi ew t hat " t he [ st ate commi ssi on' s] order was pr obabl y not

i nconsi st ent wi t h f eder al l aw af t er al l . " I d. The Cour t r esponded

by st at i ng t hat t he "i nqui r y i nt o whet her sui t l i es under Ex par t e

Young does not i ncl ude an anal ysi s of t he mer i t s of t he cl ai m. "

I d. ( ci t i ng I daho v. Coeur d' Al ene Tr i be of I daho, 521 U. S. 261,

281 ( 1997) ( "An al l egat i on of an ongoi ng vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw

. . . i s or di nar i l y suf f i ci ent t o i nvoke [ Ex par t e Young] . ") ) .

Thi s "st r ai ght f or war d i nqui r y" i s not al ways so

st r ai ght f or war d. See Ver i zon, 535 U. S. at 64849 ( Kennedy, J . ,

concur r i ng) ( cal l i ng t he Ver i zon t est "decept i vel y si mpl e") .

Rat her , " t he di f f er ence bet ween t he t ype of r el i ef bar r ed by the

El event h Amendment and t hat per mi t t ed under Ex par t e Young wi l l not

i n many i nst ances be t hat bet ween day and ni ght . " Edel man, 415

U. S. at 667. Al so, t her e ar e "cer t ai n t ypes of cases t hat f or mal l y

meet t he [ Ex par t e] Young r equi r ement s of a st at e of f i ci al act i ng

i nconsi st ent l y wi t h f eder al l aw but t hat st r et ch t hat case t oo f ar

and woul d upset t he bal ance of f eder al and st at e i nt er est s t hat i t

embodi es. " Papasan v. Al l ai n, 478 U. S. 265, 277 ( 1986) .

-16-


17/27

Wi t h t he f or egoi ng as our gui de, we exami ne pl ai nt i f f s'

compl ai nt , wi t h speci al at t ent i on t o t he ongoi ng nat ur e of t he

al l eged of f ense and t he t ype of r el i ef sought .

2. Application of that Law to this Case

The compl ai nt f i r st asks t he cour t t o " [ e] nj oi n[ ] t he DPU

f r om enf or ci ng i t s or der appr ovi ng t he PPA"- - a cont r act t hat i s

enf or ceabl e pur el y due t o DPU' s ( al l egedl y unconst i t ut i onal )

Or der 12- 30. And i t r equest s a decl aratory j udgment t hat DPU

Or der 12- 30, whi ch pl ai nt i f f s say i s i n ef f ect "f or c[ i ng] [ NSTAR]

t o pur chase power pur suant t o t he Cape Wi nd- NSTAR cont r act , " be

nul l i f i ed. As pl ed by pl ai nt i f f s, t he cont i nued enf or ceabi l i t y of

t he PPA r epr esent s an ongoi ng vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw because

Or der 12- 30 bi nds t he par t i es t o abi de by t he PPA' s al l egedl y

unconst i t ut i onal t er ms. The r el i ef r equest ed i s "proper l y

cat egor i zed as pr ospect i ve" because i t i s t r ai ned at pr event i ng

f ut ur e cont r act per f or mance and avoi di ng damages t hat pl ai nt i f f s

have yet t o i ncur . Ver i zon, 535 U. S. at 645 ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) .

The di st r i ct cour t di d not cl ai m t hat pl ai nt i f f s sought

damages f r om t he st at e t r easur y. I t al so i mpl i ci t l y r ecogni zed

t hat a cl ai m f or money damages i s not a si ne qua non f or f i ndi ng a

l ack of f eder al cour t j ur i sdi ct i on. See Coggeshal l v. Mass. Bd. of

Regi st r at i on of Psychol ogi st s, 604 F. 3d 658, 666 n. 4 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) ( "We do not i mpl y t hat t he El event h Amendment bar s cl ai ms

-17-


18/27

onl y f or money damages. That i s not t he case. " ) . I n t hi s manner ,

t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y reached t he key quest i on: i s t he

r equest ed r el i ef " pr oper l y char act er i zed as pr ospect i ve. " Va.

Of f i ce f or Pr ot . & Advocacy v. St ewar t , 131 S. Ct . 1632, 1639

( 2011) ( quot i ng Ver i zon, 535 U. S. at 645 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . I n answer i ng t hi s quest i on i n t he negat i ve, t he di st r i ct

cour t f ound t hat :

[ T] he ef f ect of a decl ar at i on t hatMassachuset t s had i l l egal l y compel l ed [ NSTAR]and Cape Wi nd t o ent er an above- market pr i cecont r act f or wi nd ener gy woul d i nevi t abl y l eadt o r est i t ut i onar y cl ai ms agai nst t heCommonweal t h by NSTAR and Cape Wi nd, whi l e ani nj unct i on order i ng DPU t o cease enf orcementof t he PPA and t o t ake r emedi al measur es f ort he al l eged const i t ut i onal har ms woul dr est r ai n t he St at e f r om acti ng by f r ust r at i ngi t s ef f or t s t o i mpl ement t he pol i ci esenunci at ed i n the GCA and t he GWSA, whi l ef ur t her bl eedi ng t he t r easur y.

( Foot not e omi t t ed) . We agr ee wi t h pl ai nt i f f s t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t er r ed i n t hi s cr uci al f i ndi ng.

Fi r st , t he hypot het i cal f ut ur e "r est i t ut i onar y cl ai ms"

t he di st r i ct cour t f or ecast s ar e bot h conj ect ur al and capabl e of

bei ng addr essed on t hei r own t er ms. As pl ai nt i f f s per suasi vel y

argue, "even i f NSTAR or Cape Wi nd coul d i dent i f y some pl ausi bl e

cl ai m f or damages agai nst t he st at e and wer e t her eupon t o f i l e

sui t , t hat sui t coul d t hen be di smi ssed on gr ounds of sover ei gn

i mmuni t y, and t he St ate' s t r easur y woul d be undi st ur bed. " So,

whet her a f ut ur e sui t by pl ai nt i f f s, NSTAR, or someone el se t hat

-18-


19/27

woul d i n f act "bl eed t he t r easur y" may be barr ed by t he

Commonweal t h' s sover ei gn i mmuni t y, we need not deci de i n thi s case.

Second, a concl usi on t hat t he r equest ed equi t abl e r el i ef

"woul d r est r ai n t he St at e f r omacti ng by f r ust r at i ng i t s ef f or t s t o

i mpl ement t he pol i ci es enunci at ed i n t he GCA and t he GWSA" does not

r esol ve t he sover ei gn i mmuni t y i nqui r y. The Ex part e Young

doct r i ne' s ver y exi st ence means t hat a pl ai nt i f f may f r ust r at e the

ef f or t s of a st at e pol i cy when t hose ef f or t s vi ol at e or i mmi nent l y

t hr eat en t o vi ol at e t he pl ai nt i f f ' s const i t ut i onal r i ght s and t he

pl ai nt i f f conf i nes i t s request t o t he pr oper f or m of r el i ef .

Def endant s al so argue t hat DPU has no ongoi ng rol e i n

enf orci ng t he PPA, and t hat t her ef ore t her e can be no "ongoi ng

vi ol at i on" of f eder al l aw under Ver i zon. They r ei t er at e t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s obser vat i on t hat t he compl ai nt i t sel f does not

r ef er t o "any f ut ur e act i ons t he St at e Def endant s must t ake wi t h

r espect t o t he cont r act . " Thus, def endant s say, t he r el i ef

pl ai nt i f f s seek i s "ent i r el y r et r ospecti ve" and f al l s out si de of

t he Ex par t e Young doct r i ne.

On t hi s poi nt , t oo, pl ai nt i f f s have a per suasi ve

r esponse. DPU does i n f act possess an ongoi ng r esponsi bi l i t y wi t h

r espect t o t he PPA, because Or der 12- 30 st ates t hat DPU wi l l

" r evi ew NSTAR El ect r i c' s r ecover y of above- mar ket cost s i n i t s

annual r econci l i at i on f i l i ngs" t o "ensur e t hat [ NSTAR] r ecover s

such cost s i n a manner appr oved by [ DPU] . " The PPA i t sel f , whi ch

-19-


20/27

DPU appr oved, al so pr ovi des t hat "upon pet i t i on by" NSTAR, DPU

shal l determi ne whether "Physi cal Const r uct i on" has commenced by

December 31, 2015, and i f i t has not commenced, NSTAR "shal l

t er mi nate" t he PPA as of sai d date. 12 The f act that Or der 12- 30

occur r ed i n t he past t her ef or e does not i t sel f push the compl ai nt

out si de t he conf i nes of t he Ex par t e Young doct r i ne. Logi c

suppor t s t hi s concl usi on: most unconst i t ut i onal agency

det er mi nat i ons wi l l have occur r ed i n t he past by the t i me a l awsui t

i s br ought ; sover ei gn i mmuni t y does not necessar i l y pr event sui t s

agai nst such st at e act i ons when t he al l eged vi ol at i on t hey spur i s

ongoi ng and no r ai d on t he st at e t r easur y wi l l r esul t . See

Ver i zon, 535 U. S. at 646.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t er r ed i n f i ndi ng t hat t he r el i ef sought by pl ai nt i f f s i s

r et r oact i ve and t hus out si de the r each of t he Ex par t e Young

except i on.

12 Pl ai nt i f f s di d not at t ach t he PPA or Or der 12- 30 t o t hei rcompl ai nt . Each was i nt r oduced bel ow f or t he f i r st t i me as anexhi bi t t o t he def endant s' mot i ons t o di smi ss. Or di nar i l y, i nconsi der i ng a mot i on t o di smi ss, we woul d not consi der ext r aneousdocument s unl ess t hey ar e at t ached t o t he compl ai nt or expr essl yi ncor por ated t her ei n, or unl ess t he pr oceedi ng was pr oper l yi ncorporat ed i nt o one f or summary j udgment under Federal Rul e of

Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56. Wat t er son v. Page, 987 F. 2d 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r .1993) . However , we have made an except i on " f or document s t heaut hent i ci t y of whi ch ar e not di sput ed by the par t i es; f or of f i ci alpubl i c recor ds; f or document s cent r al t o pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai m; or f ordocument s suf f i ci ent l y r ef er r ed t o i n t he compl ai nt . " I d. at 34( col l ect i ng cases) . That except i on appl i es to bot h t he PPA andOr der 12- 30.

-20-


21/27

C. Alternative Arguments For Affirmance

Ant i ci pat i ng t he possi bi l i t y that we woul d r ever se t he

sover ei gn i mmuni t y hol di ng, def endant s poi nt us t o sever al ot her

al t er nat i ve ar gument s f or af f i r mi ng a j udgment of di smi ssal , al l of

whi ch wer e advanced i n the di st r i ct cour t , but not addr essed by t he

cour t ot her t han si gnal i ng t hat i t t ended t o f i nd at l east some of

t hose gr ounds f or di smi ssal per suasi ve. Our pr ecedent gi ves us t he

di scr et i on whet her t o reach t hose ar gument s i n t he f i r st i nst ance,

or t o r emand. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es ex r el . Est at e of

Cunni nghamv. Mi l l enni um Labs. of Cal . , I nc. , 713 F. 3d 662, 67576

( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( r emandi ng f or a det er mi nat i on of whet her r el at or ' s

cl ai ms wer e wel l - pl ed under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 6) and 9( b) af t er

f i ndi ng er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t hat i t l acked

j ur i sdi ct i on) ; Agui l ar v. U. S. I mmi grat i on & Cust oms Enf or cement ,

510 F. 3d 1, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( assessi ng t he vi abi l i t y of

pet i t i oner s' cl ai ms on t he mer i t s af t er f i ndi ng t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t er r oneousl y di smi ssed t he case on j ur i sdi ct i onal gr ounds) .

Our exer ci se of t hat di scret i on i n t hi s i nst ance i s gui ded by

devel opment s t hat occur r ed af t er br i ef i ng was compl et e.

On December 31, 2014, a week bef or e we heard oral

ar gument s i n t hi s case, Cape Wi nd not i f i ed NSTAR t hat i t had f ai l ed

t o t i mel y meet cer t ai n f i nanci ng deadl i nes ( "Cr i t i cal Mi l est ones")

def i ned i n t he PPA. NSTAR t hen sent a l et t er dated J anuary 6, 2015

t o Cape Wi nd, st at i ng t hat NSTAR was i nvoki ng i t s r i ght t o

-21-


22/27

t er mi nat e t he PPA due t o t hat def aul t , i n accor dance wi t h t he

r i ght s r eserved t o NSTAR by t he PPA' s r emedi es pr ovi si ons. On t he

next day, NSTAR f i l ed a l et t er wi t h t hi s cour t not i f yi ng us of t he

t er mi nat i on and opi ni ng t hat t he t er mi nat i on moot ed t hi s appeal .

We r esponded by i nst r uct i ng t he par t i es t o submi t suppl ement al

br i ef i ng t o expl ai n what had occur r ed and t o set f or t h any

argument s about t he moot ness or r i peness of t he appeal f ol l owi ng

NSTAR' s pur por t ed t er mi nat i on. Pr edi ct abl y, t he par t i es di sagr ee

about whet her NSTAR' s t er mi nat i on i s " val i d" under t he cont r act ,

whet her Cape Wi nd has t aken t he st eps necessary t o pr eserve t he

cont r act i n t he f ace of NSTAR' s at t empt ed t er mi nat i on, and whet her

Cape Wi nd has a pl ausi bl e def ense t o NSTAR' s t ermi nat i on under t he

PPA' s " For ce Maj eur e" Cl ause.

The par t i es al so advance di f f er ent vi ews on t he

moot ness/ r i peness i ssue: NSTAR argues t hat t he appeal i s bot h moot

and unr i pe; pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he appeal i s unr i pe but not

moot ; Cape Wi nd says i t i s nei t her ; and t he st at e def endant s t ake

no posi t i on on t he moot ness/ r i peness i ssue.

The Supreme Cour t has pl aced t he "heavy bur den of

per suasi on" wi t h r espect t o moot ness on t he part y advocat i ng f or

i t . Uni t ed St at es v. Concent r at ed Phosphat e Exp. Ass' n, 393 U. S.

199, 203 ( 1968) ; accor d Adar and Const r uct or s, I nc. v. Sl at er , 528

U. S. 216, 222 ( 2000) . The Cour t has used st r ong l i mi t i ng l anguage

t o descr i be t he moot ness i nqui r y: I nt er veni ng event s must "have

-22-


23/27

compl et el y and i r r evocabl y er adi cat ed t he ef f ect s" of t he par t i es'

conduct i n order f or a case t o be deemed moot . Cnt y. of Los

Angel es v. Davi s, 440 U. S. 625, 631 ( 1979) ; accor d Knox v. Ser v.

Emps. I nt ' l Uni on, Local 1000, 132 S. Ct . 2277, 2287 ( 2012) ( " [ A] s

l ong as t he par t i es have a concr et e i nt er est , however smal l , i n t he

out come of t he l i t i gat i on, t he case i s not moot . " ( al t er at i on i n

or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

I f Cape Wi nd agr eed t hat NSTAR' s t er mi nat i on of t he PPA

was val i d, we woul d have l i t t l e di f f i cul t y det er mi ni ng t hat t he

case was moot . There woul d be no l egal l y bi ndi ng cont r act

enf or cement t o enj oi n, and a decl ar at i on of t he def unct PPA' s

i l l egal i t y woul d be "mer el y advi sor y. " Am. Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on

of Mass. v. U. S. Conf er ence of Cat hol i c Bi shops, 705 F. 3d 44, 53,

58 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( "The expi r at i on of a cont r act on i t s own t er ms

const i t ut es . . . a moot i ng event . ") ; cf . Lake Coal Co. , I nc. v.

Robert s & Schaef er Co. , 474 U. S. 120, 120 ( 1985) ( per cur i am)

( compl et e, uncont est ed set t l ement moot s appeal ) .

NSTAR' s t er mi nat i on of t he cont r act , however , i s

cont est ed by Cape Wi nd. Ther ef ore, t o f i nd t hat NSTAR' s pur port ed

cont r act t er mi nat i on "compl et el y and i r r evocabl y er adi cat ed the

ef f ect s" of Or der 12- 30, Cnt y. of Los Angel es, 440 U. S. at 631, we

woul d need t o adj udi cat e t he mer i t s of t he t er mi nat i on di sput e.

Such a need i t sel f suggest s t hat t her e pr esent l y remai ns a l i ve

cont r over sy. See Chi co Ser v. St at i on, I nc. v. Sol P. R. Lt d. , 633

-23-


24/27

F. 3d 20, 36 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( deci di ng t hat " [ w] e cannot concl ude

t hat [ t he pl ai nt i f f ' s] cl ai m. . . i s moot , " because "t her e appear

t o be unr esol ved di sput es as t o whet her [ t he def endant ] has met i t s

. . . obl i gat i ons" under t he r el evant st at ut e) ; cf . Uni t ed St at es

v. Hahn, 359 F. 3d 1315, 1323 ( 10t h Ci r . 2004) ( en banc)

( di st i ngui shi ng an ear l i er - deci ded, moot ed case because the par t i es

t o a ci vi l set t l ement agr eement di d not chal l enge t he agr eement ' s

val i di t y, wher eas t he pl ea agr eement i n t he i nst ant case di d not

moot def endant ' s sent enci ng chal l enge because def endant sought t o

voi d t he agr eement ) . We f i nd par t i cul ar l y i nst r uct i ve t he f act

t hat NSTAR pr edi cat es i t s moot ness argument on i t s own

i nt er pr et at i ons of t he PPA' s t er mi nat i on and f or ce maj eur e cl auses,

whi l e si mul t aneousl y t el l i ng us t hat , due i n par t t o t he cont r act ' s

di sput e r esol ut i on pr ovi si ons, f eder al cour t s l ack j ur i sdi cti on t o

deci de t hat i t s ( cont est ed) i nt er pr et at i ons ar e cor r ect . 13

Nor does NSTAR' s chal l enged cont r act t er mi nat i on l ead us

t o concl ude t hat t he r i peness doct r i ne di vest s t hi s cour t ( or t he

di st r i ct cour t on r emand) of j ur i sdi cti on t o adj udi cat e pl ai nt i f f s'

cl ai ms. " [ W] her e chal l enges ar e assert ed t o gover nment act i ons and

r i peness quest i ons ar i se, a cour t must consi der bot h ' f i t ness' f or

13 Mor e speci f i cal l y, NSTAR cl ai ms i n i t s suppl ement al br i eft hat bot h t hi s cour t and t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t l ackj ur i sdi ct i on t o adj udi cat e a cont r act ual di sput e concer ni ng t he PPAdue t o the PPA' s f or um sel ect i on cl ause and t he absence of f eder alsubj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on. We t ake no posi t i on on ei t herar gument .

-24-


25/27

r evi ew and ' har dshi p. ' " Ver i zon New Engl and, I nc. v. I nt ' l Bhd. of

El ec. Wor ker s, Local No. 2322, 651 F. 3d 176, 188 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

The " f i t ness f or r evi ew" i nqui r y cent er s upon "whether

t he cl ai m i nvol ves uncer t ai n and cont i ngent event s t hat may not

occur as ant i ci pat ed or may not occur at al l . " Er nst & Young v.

Deposi t or s Econ. Pr ot . Cor p. , 45 F. 3d 530, 536 ( 1st Ci r . 1995)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Resol ut i on of t he act ual cl ai m

her e- - t hat Massachuset t s of f i ci al s unconst i t ut i onal l y f or ced NSTAR

t o ent er a cont r act wi t h Cape Wi nd- - hi nges on an assessment of

event s t hat have al r eady occur r ed. Al l t hat i s cont i ngent and

uncer t ai n i s t he possi bi l i t y t hat t he di sput e about t he l awf ul ness

of t he Commonweal t h' s act i ons may become moot . I f we were t o f i nd

t he possi bi l i t y of f ut ur e moot ness t o be t he t ype of cont i ngency

t hat woul d cr eate a l ack of r i peness, we woul d si mpl y be changi ng

moot ness doct r i ne t o si gnal a l ack of j ur i sdi ct i on not mer el y when

a cont r over sy i s moot , but al so when i t mi ght become moot .

The hardshi p i nqui r y i s best ar t i cul at ed i n a "posi t i ve

vei n. " Ver i zon New Engl and, 651 F. 3d at 188 ( quot i ng Rhode I sl and

v. Nar r aganset t I ndi an Tr i be, 19 F. 3d 685, 693 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ) .

I t t ur ns on "whet her gr ant i ng r el i ef woul d ser ve a usef ul pur pose,

or , put anot her way, whet her t he sought - af t er decl ar at i on woul d be

of pr act i cal assi st ance i n set t i ng t he under l yi ng cont r over sy t o

r est . " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . That st andar d i s

sat i sf i ed her e because Cape Wi nd and/ or NSTAR woul d undoubtedl y act

-25-


26/27

di f f er ent l y t omor r ow, and be abl e to spend t hei r r esour ces wi t h

l ess r i sk of wast e, i f t hey l ear ned t oday t hat DPU' s appr oval of

t he PPA i s i nval i d. See Weaver ' s Cove Ener gy, LLC v. R. I . Coast al

Res. Mgmt . Counci l , 589 F. 3d 458, 46869 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( deci di ng

t hat case was r i pe i n part because a hol di ng on t he mer i t s woul d

cause t he cont est ed agency deci si ons and r egul at i ons t o "cease t o

be bar r i er s t o ul t i mat e appr oval of t he pr oj ect ") . Of cour se, t he

added f act or of pot ent i al moot ness may make i t easi er t o bet on how

best t o act i n t he f ace of any di l emma cr eat ed by pl ai nt i f f s' l egal

chal l enge. But , agai n, we can f i nd no basi s f or expandi ng t he

gr ounds f or f i ndi ng j ur i sdi ct i onal moot ness si mpl y by r el abel i ng

t he pot ent i al f or f ut ur e moot ness t o be a l ack of r i peness.

We concl ude, t her ef or e, t hat f or our pur poses t her e

r emai ns a case or cont r over sy. That bei ng sai d, however , what

f aci al l y appear s t o be a ser i ous pot ent i al f or t hi s case t o become

moot does cause us t o decl i ne t o exer ci se our di scr et i on t o r each

out now t o deci de quest i ons of l aw upon whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t

has i t sel f not yet f ocused or addr essed ot her t han i n passi ng. The

di st r i ct cour t i s bet t er abl e t han i s t hi s cour t t o det er mi ne t he

i mmi nency of t he cont r act t er mi nat i on di sput e' s r esol ut i on and,

wi t hi n r eason, set t he schedul e f or r esol vi ng pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms

accor di ngl y. I t may be, t oo, t hat wi t h t he Ex par t e Young i ssue

r esol ved, t he par t i es may t hemsel ves agr ee on a sensi bl e pr i or i t y

f or r esol vi ng t he cont r act i ssues and t he remai ni ng l egal

-26-


27/27

chal l enges t o t he cont r act ' s val i di t y.

III. Conclusion

We expr ess no vi ew on whether t he compl ai nt ' s f act ual

al l egat i ons wi t h r espect t o ei t her subst ant i ve cl ai mare ot her wi se

suf f i ci ent l y wel l - pl ed t o sur vi ve a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on f or

f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m. See Schat z v. Republ i can St at e

Leadershi p Comm. , 669 F. 3d 50, 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Nor do we

expr ess any opi ni on on t he val i di t y of def endant s' ot her bases f or

a mot i on t o di smi ss such as whet her pl ai nt i f f s have st andi ng t o

pr ess t hei r cl ai ms or whet her t hey possess a pr i vat e ri ght of

act i on under t he Supr emacy Cl ause. We si mpl y hol d t hat : t he

di str i ct cour t er r ed i n concl udi ng t hat pl ai nt i f f s ' cl ai ms f al l

out si de t he Ex par t e Young except i on t o t he El event h Amendment ; and

t hat t he case i s now nei t her moot nor unr i pe.

We t heref ore vacat e t he j udgment of di smi ssal , and remand

t hi s case t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or acti ons consi st ent wi t h t hi s

opi ni on.

-27-

town of barnstable v. o'connor, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents