Supreme Court Vacates and Remands D.C. Circuit’s Decision in Broadview Solar Case in Light of Chevron Ruling
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.03.24
In one of the first rulings applying Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court on Tuesday vacated and remanded the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Solar Energy Industries Association v. FERC for further consideration.
The case, otherwise known as Broadview Solar, involves the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC”) interpretation of “qualifying facility” (“QF”) under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”). While PURPA permits certain renewable energy generators with a power production capacity of 80 MW or less to qualify for benefits, such as an exemption from certain filing obligations and a requirement that electric utilities must purchase their output in non-RTO regions, the Commission concluded in Broadview Solar that a solar and battery facility with a 160 MW gross capacity was nonetheless a QF under PURPA because the project was physically limited to providing 80 MW of power to the grid at any given time.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed FERC’s order on appeal, but on remand must now review the case without deferring to FERC’s interpretation. It will be important to watch this case closely, particularly for those renewable generators that have relied on or planned to rely on Broadview Solar in qualifying for QF status.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
