Allco Renewable Energy Ltd. v. Massachusetts Electric Co., 875 F.3d 64

Allco offered to sell output from eleven Massachusetts solar qualifying facilities (QFs) to National Grid; National Grid declined negotiated contracts and offered its standard power purchase terms based on MDPU regulations.
Allco petitioned the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (MDPU) challenging National Grid’s response; MDPU found National Grid’s offer reasonable under state regulations.
Allco petitioned FERC to enforce PURPA against the MDPU; FERC declined, enabling Allco to bring an implementation challenge in federal court under 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3(h)(2)(B).
Allco sued National Grid and MDPU officials in federal court seeking (1) a declaration that National Grid had a must-buy obligation to purchase Allco’s output for 25 years at avoided-cost rates, (2) damages from National Grid, and (3) invalidation of MDPU regulations.
The district court invalidated the MDPU regulations as inconsistent with PURPA, dismissed Allco’s claims against National Grid for lack of a private right of action, and denied Allco’s request that the court itself calculate National Grid’s avoided-cost rate.
The First Circuit affirmed: PURPA does not unambiguously create a private federal cause of action for QFs to sue utilities, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting relief and leaving rate determination to the MDPU.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PURPA (§210) implicitly creates a private federal right for QFs to sue utilities to enforce the must-buy obligation	Allco: §210 imposes a contract-like must-buy duty on utilities, so QFs must have a federal cause of action to enforce it	National Grid: PURPA’s text provides elaborate enforcement mechanisms (FERC, state processes, as-applied/state-court suits) and contains no unambiguous private right against utilities	Held: No. The statute lacks unambiguous intent to create such a private federal cause of action; dismissal affirmed
Whether the district court erred by refusing to calculate National Grid’s avoided-cost rate and by denying additional relief against MDPU officials	Allco: District courts hearing implementation challenges may issue appropriate injunctive or other relief, including rate calculations or appointing a special master; alternatively defer to FERC under primary jurisdiction	State defendants/MDPU: Rate-setting is a state agency function; district court lacks rate-making authority; primary jurisdiction and agency expertise counsel leaving rate determination to MDPU	Held: No abuse of discretion. Court properly invalidated MDPU rules and left rate calculation to the MDPU; soliciting FERC amicus input sufficed

FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742 (1982) (discusses PURPA’s objectives and that states may resolve disputes case-by-case)
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (private rights of action must be unambiguously conferred by Congress)
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (rights-creating language alone insufficient to establish enforceable private rights)
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015) (complex statutory enforcement schemes and administrative remedies weigh against implying private remedies)
Am. Paper Inst. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402 (1983) (FERC’s interpretation that PURPA requires purchases at full avoided cost)
Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. FERC, 854 F.3d 692 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (explains avoided-cost methodology and state role in rate-setting under PURPA)
Transamerica Mortg. Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11 (1979) (addresses implications of statutory contract-like declarations)
Exelon Wind 1, L.L.C. v. Nelson, 766 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2014) (distinguishes implementation vs. as-applied challenges under PURPA)