Village of Old Mill Creek v. Star

2017 WL 3008289 (2017)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Village of Old Mill Creek v. Star

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
2017 WL 3008289 (2017)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

The State of Illinois passed the Future Energy Jobs Act and implemented a program for zero emission credits (ZECs) to subsidize nuclear-power generation after Exelon Corporation announced it would shut down two of its nuclear-generation facilities due to operating losses. The purposes of the ZEC program were to protect the environment and save energy jobs at nuclear facilities. Qualifying energy-generating facilities earned ZECs by producing electricity from resources with zero emissions. Electric utilities were required to enter contracts to purchase ZECs. ZECs were conferred on zero-emission generation facilities equal to 16 percent of the electricity delivered to retail customers during a calendar year. The utilities providing retail electricity were required to purchase all ZECs conferred on zero-emission facilities each year. The price for ZECs was initially set equal to the social cost of carbon, but it was permitted to be adjusted to ensure electricity remained affordable to retail customers. When sold, ZECs provided payments to certain nuclear plants for each megawatt hour of electricity produced. This allowed nuclear plants to bid into the wholesale-market auctions at lower prices than they would have otherwise bid without the payments from ZECs. Two separate suits were field to challenge the Future Energy Jobs Act’s ZEC program. A group of delivery-services customers of the Commonwealth Edison Company in Illinois comprising the Village of Old Mill Creek; Ferrite International Company; Got It Maid, Incorporated; Nafisca Zotos; Robert Dillon; Richard Owens; and Robin Hawkins (plaintiffs) brought the first suit. An industry association for competitive power producers, Electric Power Supply, and several independent power producers, Calpine Corporation; Dynegy Incorporated; Eastern Generation, LLC; and NRG Energy, Incorporated (plaintiffs) brought the second suit. The State of Illinois (defendant) and Exelon (defendant) filed motions to dismiss the complaints.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Shah, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership