William B. Newton v. Duke Energy Florida, LLC, 895 F.3d 1270

Background

Florida enacted the Renewable Energy Technologies and Energy Efficiency Act (2006), authorizing the Public Service Commission (PSC) to create the Nuclear Cost Recovery System (NCRS), permitting utilities to collect rate increases up front for nuclear plant siting/design/licensing/construction and to retain funds even if projects are never completed.
Plaintiffs (Florida utility customers) sued two utilities (Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power & Light), seeking to invalidate Florida Statutes §§ 366.93 and 403.519(4) as violating the Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC) and being preempted by the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Policy Act; they did not sue the State or PSC.
Utilities moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (inter alia) that DCC injury belongs to states/out-of-state parties and that preemption is a defense, not an independent claim; they also contended they are private actors not subject to constitutional claims.
The district court dismissed the DCC claim for lack of prudential standing/zone-of-interests and dismissed the federal preemption claims (Atomic Energy Act and Energy Policy Act) for failing to create a private cause of action; it denied leave to amend and denied reconsideration under Rule 60(b).
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo and the denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion, affirmed dismissal of the DCC claim (plaintiffs not the class of persons DCC protects), held the Atomic Energy Act does not preempt the NCRS (federal field of nuclear safety preserved but states retain economic/regulatory authority), and affirmed denial of leave to amend (proposed amendments were vague and barred by Eleventh Amendment/§1983 limits).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Florida’s statutes authorizing the NCRS violate the Dormant Commerce Clause	Plaintiffs: NCRS discriminates/impedes interstate commerce by favoring in-state interests and shifting nuclear costs	Utilities: DCC injury belongs to states/out-of-state actors; plaintiffs are in-state customers and lack zone-of-interests; utilities are private actors	Court: Dismissed DCC claim—plaintiffs are in-state customers outside the DCC’s protective zone; claim fails under Rule 12(b)(6)
Whether the Atomic Energy Act field-preempts Florida’s NCRS	Plaintiffs: AEA occupies field over nuclear plant construction/regulation so state cost-recovery scheme is preempted	Utilities: NCRS addresses economic/regulatory matters left to states; AEA does not preempt state economic regulation	Court: AEA does not preempt NCRS; federal occupation of nuclear safety leaves room for state economic regulation (Pacific Gas controlling)
Whether plaintiffs may bring a preemption-based cause of action in federal court	Plaintiffs: Seek injunctive relief; complete preemption converts claim into federal question	Utilities: Preemption is a defense, not a standalone cause of action	Court: Federal jurisdiction exists for injunctive preemption claims, but Plaintiffs failed on the merits as to AEA preemption
Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend to add state defendant or §1983 claims	Plaintiffs: Could cure defects by naming State or alleging utilities acted under color of state law	Utilities: Adding state or §1983 allegations is futile; plaintiffs’ motion lacked substance and some additions would violate Eleventh Amendment/§1983 limits	Court: No abuse of discretion—proposed amendments were vague, procedurally deficient, and legally futile; Eleventh Amendment and §1983 constraints bar relief

Key Cases Cited

New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269 (U.S. 1988) (Dormant Commerce Clause protects against state measures discriminating against interstate commerce)
Dep’t of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 (U.S. 2008) (modern DCC doctrine driven by economic protectionism concerns)
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1983) (federal government occupies nuclear safety field but states may regulate for economic reasons)
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1983) (plaintiff seeking injunctive relief that state regulation is preempted presents a federal question)
Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (U.S. 2014) (distinguishing merits of cause of action from subject-matter jurisdiction/prudential standing analysis)
Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (states and state agencies are not "persons" under §1983)
Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118 (11th Cir. 1994) (zone-of-interests analysis in Dormant Commerce Clause context)