Energy & Environment Legal Institute v. Epel, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12057

Colorado enacted a renewable portfolio mandate requiring electricity sellers to ensure 20% of electricity sold to Colorado consumers comes from renewable sources, with the percentage rising over time.
Energy & Environment Legal Institute (EELI) challenged the statute, claiming it burdens interstate commerce because Colorado is part of a multi-state interconnected grid and is a net electricity importer.
EELI framed its constitutional attack under the dormant Commerce Clause, invoking the Baldwin extraterritoriality line of cases (and originally also Pike and Philadelphia tests), but on appeal limited its challenge to Baldwin.
The district court granted summary judgment to Colorado, rejecting EELI’s Baldwin-based challenge and denying EELI’s request for further discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: it held Baldwin’s near-per-se rule inapplicable because Colorado’s law is a non-price quality/regulatory standard that does not tie in-state prices to out-of-state prices or intentionally discriminate against out-of-state interests.
The court also held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further discovery: EELI had received an extended discovery period and never identified additional needed discovery after the close of discovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Colorado’s renewable mandate violates the dormant Commerce Clause under the Baldwin extraterritoriality/price-affirmation doctrine	EELI: The mandate effectively controls out-of-state conduct and harms out-of-state coal producers by reducing demand, so it is invalid under Baldwin/Healy/Brown-Forman	Colorado: The mandate regulates the mix/quality of electricity sold in-state, not prices, does not tie Colorado prices to out-of-state prices, and does not discriminate against out-of-state interests	Held: Baldwin inapplicable—statute is non-price, non-discriminatory regulation; Pike or Philadelphia not decided here but Baldwin’s near-per-se rule requires price-affirmation/price-control linking which is absent
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying EELI’s Rule 56(d) request for more discovery before ruling on summary judgment	EELI: The summary judgment ruling was premature; it filed a Rule 56(d) affidavit seeking additional discovery	Colorado: EELI received extended discovery (through January 2014) and never identified additional needed discovery after the close; procedural objections to affidavit were understandable	Held: No abuse of discretion—procedural rejection of affidavit was mistaken, but alternative basis supports denial because EELI had ample time and did not supplement its record or identify needed discovery post-close

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (establishes Congress’s Commerce Clause power and early federal/state commerce tension)
Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 (early Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence recognizing state regulation in areas of local concern)
Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (rule-of-reason balancing test for dormant Commerce Clause challenges)
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (per se condemnation of statutes that clearly discriminate against out-of-state interests)
New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269 (discusses discrimination-based dormant Commerce Clause analysis)
Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 (extraterritoriality/price-affirmation doctrine invalidating state price-control linking in-state and out-of-state prices)
Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 476 U.S. 573 (struck down monthly price-affirmation requirement)
Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc., 491 U.S. 324 (invalidated a price-affirmation scheme as extraterritorial)
Pharm. Research & Mfrs. of Am. v. Walsh, 538 U.S. 644 (explains Baldwin line applies to price-control/price-affirmation tying in-state prices to out-of-state prices)