# LSP TRANSMISSION HOLDINGS II, LLC v. HUSTON

> District Court, S.D. Indiana · December 6, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10756598

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Indiana
- **Decided:** December 6, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10756598

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding the Governor could not be sued because he "was not specifically charged with a duty to enforce the name-change statute"

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

LSP TRANSMISSION HOLDINGS II, LLC, )
LS POWER MIDCONTINENT, LLC, )
CENTRAL TRANSMISSION, LLC, )
LS POWER GRID DRS HOLDINGS, LLC, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:24-cv-01722-TWP-MG
)
CHAIRMAN JAMES F. HUSTON Indiana Utility )
Regulatory Commission, )
COMMISSIONER WESLEY R. BENNETT )
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, )
COMMISSIONER SARAH E. FREEMAN )
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, )
COMMISSIONER DAVID E. VELETA Indiana )
Utility Regulatory Commission, )
COMMISSIONER DAVID E. ZIEGNER Indiana )
Utility Regulatory Commission, )
)
Defendants. )
)
NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE )
COMPANY, )
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
d/b/a AES Indiana, )
SOUTHERN INDIANA GAS AND ELECTRIC )
COMPANY d/b/a CenterPoint Energy Indiana )
South, )
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA, LLC, )
)
Intervenor Defendants. )

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC, LS Power
Midcontinent, LLC, Central Transmission LLC, and LS Power Grid DRS Holdings, LLC's
(collectively, "LSP") Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("the Motion"). (Filing No. 4.) LSP, a
developer and owner of transmission projects throughout the United States, seeks to bid on several
forthcoming transmission projects in Indiana, but claims that Indiana House Enrolled Act 1420 of
2023 ("HEA 1420") blocks them from doing so. LSP asserts its claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
seeks to enjoin the Chairman and Commissioners of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
(collectively, "IURC" or "IURC Defendants") from enforcing HEA 1420 because it violates the

dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Filing No. 4 at 1.) For the reasons that
follow, the Court grants LSP's request for preliminary injunctive relief.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. In each
case, courts must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each
party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the party seeking the injunctive relief
must demonstrate that:
(1) it has some likelihood of success on the merits of its claim; (2) it has no adequate
remedy at law; (3) without relief it will suffer irreparable harm. If the plaintiff fails
to meet any of these threshold requirements, the court must deny the injunction.
However, if the plaintiff passes that threshold, the court must weigh the harm that
the plaintiff will suffer absent an injunction against the harm to the defendant from
an injunction, and consider whether an injunction is in the public interest.

GEFT Outdoors, LLC v. City of Westfield, 922 F.3d 357, 364 (7th Cir. 2019) ("GEFT I") (citations
and quotation marks omitted). "The court weighs the balance of potential harms on a 'sliding scale'
against the movant's likelihood of success: the more likely he is to win, the less the balance of
harms must weigh in his favor; the less likely he is to win, the more it must weigh in his favor."
Turnell v. CentiMark Corp., 796 F.3d 656, 662 (7th Cir. 2015). "The sliding scale approach is not
mathematical in nature, rather it is more properly characterized as subjective and intuitive, one
which permits district courts to weigh the competing considerations and mold appropriate relief."
Stuller, Inc. v. Steak N Shake Enters., Inc., 695 F.3d 676, 678 (7th Cir. 2012) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). "Stated another way, the district court 'sit[s] as would a chancellor in
equity' and weighs all the factors, 'seeking at all times to minimize the costs of being mistaken.'"
Id. (quoting Abbott Lab'ys v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6, 12 (7th Cir. 1992)).

II. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Regulatory Background
In 1920, Congress enacted the Federal Power Act ("the Act") to regulate the interstate
transmission of electricity across the United States. See generally, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791, 824. The
Act authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") (formerly, the Federal Power
Commission) to regulate interstate electricity transmission by monitoring interstate energy markets
to ensure they remain reliable, open and competitive.1 In particular, FERC is charged with the
"establishment, review, and enforcement of rates and charges for the transmission or sale of electric

energy, including … the interconnection … of facilities for the generation, transmission, and sale
of electric energy." 42 U.S.C. §§ 7134, 7172(a)(1)(B).
In the decades following the Act's enactment, FERC sought to transform the electric power
market to make electric transmission more efficient, competitive, and affordable. In 1996, FERC
issued a rule, known as Order No. 888, to "remove impediments to competition in the wholesale
bulk power marketplace and to bring more efficient, lower cost power to the Nation's electricity
consumers." Promulgating Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory
Transmission Services, Order No. 888, 61 Fed. Reg. 21,540 (Apr. 24, 1996). Order No. 888
required all owners of high-voltage interstate transmission lines to allow access to their systems

by any power generator or power consumer who wanted to use them. Id. It also encouraged the

1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Open Access: Major FERC Orders: Part II, Order No. 888, YOUTUBE
(Apr. 27, 2017), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj_ElKbVKFE.
creation of independent system operators ("ISOs") and regional transmission organizations as a
mechanism for streamlining regional electric transmission planning. Id. at 279. ISOs and regional
transmission organizations are comprised of individual transmission owners that work together to
develop procedures to manage electric transmission equitably.2 They are required to submit an

"open-access tariff," subject to FERC's approval, describing the services they would provide, the
cost of those services, and how their services would be regulated. 18 C.F.R. § 35.34(k); see also
18 C.F.R. § 35.2(c)(1).
Indiana's power grid is managed by two regional transmission organizations: Midcontinent
Independent System Operator ("MISO") and PJM Interconnection ("PJM"). Before 2011, MISO's
tariff gave transmission owners already serving a particular area the right to be the first to decide
whether to construct an electric transmission project. See MISO Transmission Owners v. F.E.R.C.,
819 F.3d 329, 332 (7th Cir. 2016). These grants were known as federal "rights of first refusal."
Id. at 331. In July 2011, however, FERC eliminated federal rights of first refusal in Order No. 1000
to further its open-access goal. Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission

Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Order No. 1000, 77 Fed. Reg. 64,890 (July 21, 2011) (18
C.F.R. § 35). In FERC's view, rights of first refusal are "unjust and unreasonable" because they
eliminate potential solutions to regional transmission needs. Order No. 1000 at 225. Indeed,
federal rights of first refusal "create opportunities for undue discrimination and preferential
treatment against nonincumbent transmission developers within existing regional transmission
planning processes." Id. at 226. Instead of avoiding competition, individual providers would be
required to meet certain qualification criteria and submit proposals to ISOs and regional

2 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Electric Power Markets: National Overview, FERC (May 16, 2023),
https://www.ferc.gov/electric-power-markets.
transmission organizations for the construction of new transmission lines in an open and
competitive bidding process. See id. at 12.
Nevertheless, FERC stopped short of eliminating state rights of first refusal. Id. at 227.
Order No. 1000 specifically states that it does not "limit, preempt, or otherwise affect state or local

laws or regulations with respect to construction of transmission facilities." Id. As the Seventh
Circuit explained, "FERC wanted 'to avoid intrusion on the traditional role of the States' in
regulating the siting and construction of transmission facilities." MISO Transmission Owners, 819
F.3d at 336 (citing S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762 F.3d 41, 72 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). As a result,
many states, including Indiana, enacted statutes reintroducing state rights of first refusal for
transmission providers with an existing presence in the state. And many regional transmission
organizations, including MISO, reintroduced tariff provisions honoring state rights of first refusal
consistent with Order No. 1000. (Filing No. 45-2, MISO Tariff, at 2.)
B. Electric Transmission in Indiana
Following the enactment of Order No. 1000, the Indiana state legislature enacted House

Enrolled Act 1420 of 2023, which provides:
(a) An incumbent electric transmission owner has the right to construct, own,
operate, and maintain the following: (1) An electric transmission facility that has
been approved for construction through a regional transmission organization
planning process and that connects to an electric transmission facility owned by the
incumbent electric transmission owner. (2) Upgrades to an existing electric
transmission facility owned by the incumbent electric transmission owner if the
upgrades have been approved for construction through a regional transmission
organization planning process.
Ind. Code § 8-1-38-9(a). "Incumbent electric transmission owners" are public utilities3 that own,
operate, and maintain an electric transmission facility4 in whole or in part in Indiana. Id. § 8-1-
38-2. If the incumbent is approved for construction by an ISO or regional transmission
organization, then it must notify IURC within ninety days of approval that it intends to construct

such a facility. Id. § 8-1-38-9(c). If the incumbent does not intend to exercise its rights under HEA
1420, then another entity may seek approval to construct the facility. Id.
In enacting HEA 1420, "the Indiana General Assembly concluded that this transmission-
project designation framework would best address the critical and ongoing responsibility of
owning and operating new transmission facilities as part of an integrated network." (Filing No. 60
at 6). The IURC Defendants proffer that "this framework furthers the health and safety of all
Hoosiers by promoting continuity of service, reliable service quality, and cost-effective
infrastructure in Indiana, consistent with Indiana’s traditional regulatory design and current energy
policy." Id.
The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission is the entity charged with regulating electric

transmission in Indiana. See generally Ind. Code. § 8-1-1-1. It is IURC's "duty to enforce [Indiana
utility regulations], as well as all other laws, relating to public utilities," id. § 8-1-2-115, including
HEA 1420.
C. MISO's Response to Order No. 1000
MISO is one of two regional transmission organizations that serve Indiana. After FERC
implemented Order No. 1000, MISO revised its tariff to include a provision requiring it to honor

3 A "public utility" is a "public, municipally owned, or cooperatively owned utility" or a "joint agency created under
Ind. Code § 8-1-2.2." Ind. Code § 8-1-8.5-1(a).

4 To be sure, an "electric transmission facility" is a "high voltage transmission line with a rating of at least one hundred
(100) kilovolts and related transmission facilities and controls." Id. § 8-1-38-1(a).
state rights of first refusal. (Filing No. 45-2 at 2) (providing that transmission providers "shall
comply with any Applicable Laws and Regulations granting a right of first refusal to a
Transmission Owner"). In 2022, MISO launched the second round ("Tranche 2.1") of its Long-
Range Transmission Planning initiative, soliciting competitive bids for five transmission

construction projects across the region, including in Indiana. MISO is set to approve a new round
of construction bids when its Board of Directors meets on December 10, 2024. (Filing No. 5-1 at
3.)
D. LSP's Background
LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC, is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business
in Chesterfield, Missouri. (Filing No. 3 at 4.) It has several subsidiaries and affiliates, including
Plaintiffs LS Power Midcontinent, LLC ("LSP Midcontinent"); Central Transmission, LLC
("Central Transmission"); and LS Power Grid DRS Holdings, LLC ("LS Power Grid"). Id. at 4-5.
Each of the plaintiff-subsidiaries are qualified to bid in MISO except Central Transmission, which
is qualified in PJM. Id. at 5. LS Power Grid is the majority owner of Republic Transmission, LLC

("Republic"), which has been certified as a public utility in Indiana and was awarded MISO's first
post-Order No. 1000 project in December 2016. (Filing No. 5-1 at 3).
LSP has a long history of active development of new electric transmission, partnering with
communities across the country to create lower-cost, cleaner energy solutions. Since their
inception, Plaintiffs and their affiliates have developed, constructed, managed, and acquired more
than 47,000 megawatts of competitive power generation and more than 780 miles of long-distance,
high-voltage transmission infrastructure in the United States, for which they have collectively
raised over $60 billion in debt and equity financing. (Filing No. 3 at 14). More than 350 miles of
additional transmission projects are currently under construction. Id.
LSP and its affiliates filed their Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the
Chairman of IURC, James Huston, and IURC's four commissioners in their official capacities
because, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, HEA 1420 violates the Commerce Clause. (Filing No. 3.)
Plaintiffs also filed the Motion for Preliminary Injunction at issue here. (Filing No. 4.) Shortly

thereafter, four entities moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 to intervene as defendants:
Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Indianapolis Power & Light Company, Southern
Indiana Gas and Electric Company, and Duke Energy Indiana (collectively, "Intervenors" or
"Intervenor Defendants"). (Filing No. 50.) Intervenor Defendants are vertically integrated,
incumbent Indiana service providers that supply electric transmission service to customers from
electricity generation through distribution and sale. (Filing No. 60 at 10, 13.) They intervened in
this action to "defend their express statutory [rights of first refusal] under HEA 1420." Id. at 13.
III. DISCUSSION
As previously stated, to obtain a preliminary injunction, LSP must establish the following
factors as to the statute it seeks to enjoin: (1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims;

(2) that it has no adequate remedy at law; (3) that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief; (4) that the balance of equities tip in its favor; and (5) issuing the
injunction is in the public interest. GEFT I, 922 F.3d at 364. The first two factors are threshold
determinations. "If the moving party meets these threshold requirements, the district court 'must
consider the irreparable harm that the nonmoving party will suffer if preliminary relief is granted,
balancing such harm against the irreparable harm the moving party will suffer if relief is denied.'"
Stuller, Inc., 695 F.3d at 678 (quoting Ty, Inc. v. Jones Group, Inc., 237 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir.
2001)). The Court will address the threshold factors before addressing the remaining factors.
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
A party moving for preliminary injunctive relief need not demonstrate a likelihood of
"absolute success on the merits." Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3rd 959, 966 (7th Cir.
2018). However, the plaintiff "must demonstrate that 'its claim has some likelihood of success on

the merits,' not merely a 'better than negligible' chance." Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 822 (7th Cir.
2020) (quoting Ty, Inc., 237 F.3d at 895). "What amounts to 'some' depends on the facts of the
case at hand because of [the] sliding scale approach." Id. (citing Ty, Inc., 237 F.3d at 895).
The Commerce Clause gives Congress authority "to regulate Commerce … among the
several States." U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The United States Supreme Court has long held that
the Commerce Clause also prohibits states from enacting laws that unduly restrict interstate
commerce. Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas, 588 U.S. 504, 514 (2019). State laws
invalidly discriminate against interstate commerce in violation of the so-called "dormant
Commerce Clause" if "they mandate differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic
interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter." Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 472

(2005). LSP seeks to enjoin IURC from enforcing HEA 1420 because the statute mandates
differential treatment of incumbent transmission owners and transmission owners without an
existing physical presence in Indiana.
The Defendants argue that LSP is not likely to succeed on the merits of the Commerce
Clause claim because the text of HEA 1420 does not create the in-state versus out-of-state
distinction, and because the Court lacks authority to hear the claim. In Defendants' view, the claim
is barred because (1) § 1983 does not provide a cause of action for Commerce Clause claims, (2)
LSP lacks standing to bring the claim, and (3) the IURC Defendants are immune from suit. As to
the first assertion, the Defendants are mistaken that LSP lacks a cause of action. It is well-settled
that "violations of the Commerce Clause may be brought under … § 1983." Dennis v. Higgins,
498 U.S. 439, 440 (1991).
Before moving to the substantive issues, the Court will first address the Defendants'
standing and sovereign immunity arguments because they implicate the Court's jurisdiction. See

McHugh v. Ill. Dep't of Transp., 55 F.4th 529, 532 (7th Cir. 2022) ("When it applies, the Eleventh
Amendment deprives federal courts of jurisdiction over claims against immune defendants.").
1. Standing
Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits federal courts to resolving "cases" and
"controversies." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. To establish the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of
standing to challenge HEA 1420, the Plaintiffs must allege they suffered (1) an injury in fact, (2)
that is fairly traceable to the defendants, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision. Bost v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, 114 F.4th 634, 639 (7th Cir. 2024) (citing Lujan v. Defs.
of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)). LSP's burden at the preliminary injunction stage is "at
least as great as the burden of resisting a summary judgment motion." Speech First, Inc. v. Killeen,

968 F.3d 628, 638 (7th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Therefore, LSP must "'set forth' by affidavit
or other evidence 'specific facts,' rather than 'general factual allegations of injury.'" Id. (citing Six
Star Holdings, LLC v. City of Milwaukee, 821 F.3d 795, 801–02 (7th Cir. 2016)).
The IURC Defendants do not challenge LSP's assertion of an injury in fact. But because
it must assure itself of jurisdiction, the Court will briefly address this initial element of standing.
An injury in fact is one that is "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical." Bost, 114 F.4th at 634 (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). The Plaintiffs
submitted evidence that they "intend to bid, if allowed, on several––and possibly all––of the
Tranche 2.1 projects in Indiana." (Filing No. 45-3 at 7.) HEA 1420 allegedly impinges on LSP's
right to bid for those projects. Thus, in this context, the "injury in fact" is "the inability to compete
on an equal footing in the bidding process, not the loss of a contract." N. E. Fla. Contractors v.
Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 666 (1993); see also All. for Clean Coal v. Miller, 44 F.3d 591, 594
(7th Cir. 1995). LSP has satisfied the requirements to show it suffered an "injury in fact" at the

preliminary injunction stage.
The IURC Defendants argue that even if LSP establishes an injury in fact, that injury is not
traceable to IURC; instead, it is traceable to MISO's decision to honor state rights of first refusal
in the first instance. (Filing No. 45 at 14.) "The traceability element of Article III standing
examines the causal connection between the assertedly unlawful conduct and the alleged injury."
Taylor v. Salvation Army Nat'l Corp., 110 F.4th 1017, 1025 (7th Cir. 2024) (citation and quotations
omitted). The plaintiff "need not establish that the defendant's conduct was the most immediate
cause, or even a proximate cause, of [its] injuries." Id. On the contrary, "Article III requires no
more than a meaningful connection between the two." Id. (cleaned up). Here, a "meaningful
connection" exists between LSP's inability to compete on an equal footing and the operation of

HEA 1420. If the right of first refusal conferred by HEA 1420 did not exist, MISO would award
its new projects through a competitive process in which LSP could participate. Because the IURC
enforces the rights of first refusal, see Ind. Code § 8-1-2-115, LSP's alleged injury is traceable to
the IURC Defendants.
Finally, the IURC Defendants argue that an injunction would not redress the alleged injury
because it would not invalidate HEA 1420 or oblige MISO to act in any way. (Filing No. 45 at
15.) MISO would instead be required to follow its tariff, which orders MISO to honor state right
of first refusal laws. Id. IURC is correct that "redressability requires that the court be able to
afford relief through the exercise of its power." Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255, 294 (2023)
(emphasis in original). But its contention fails on the theory that an injunction would only redress
an injury resulting from a third party––MISO––not before this Court. As explained above, LSP's
injury is traceable to IURC through its enforcement of HEA 1420. The Indiana legislature has
imposed on IURC a "duty, to enforce [utility regulations] as well as all other laws, relating to

public utilities." Ind. Code § 8-1-2-115. HEA 1420 is situated within Title 8, Article 1, Chapter
38 of the Indiana Code covering "Utilities and Transportation." See Ind. Code § 8-1-38-9. By
definition, HEA 1420 is a law "relating to public utilities" that IURC must enforce. Accordingly,
this Court can, through the exercise of its powers, enjoin IURC from implementing HEA 1420.
See GEFT Outdoor, LLC v. City of Evansville, 110 F.4th 935, 938 (7th Cir. 2024) ("GEFT II").
IURC would no longer be permitted to recognize an incumbent's right of first refusal, and neither,
in turn, would MISO.
If IURC remains concerned that an injunction would affect only MISO as an independent
third party, LSP can still satisfy the redressability element by showing there is a "substantial risk
that, in the near future," MISO will limit Tranche 2.1 awards to incumbents in violation of the

Commerce Clause. See Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43, 58 (2024) ("[T]he plaintiffs must show
that the third-party platforms 'will likely react in predictable ways' to the defendants' conduct.")
(citing Dep't of Com. v. New York, 588 U.S. 752, 768 (2019)). In a recent state case, an Iowa court
enjoined enforcement of Iowa's right-of-first-refusal law. See LS Power Midcontinent, LLC v.
State, 988 N.W.2d 316 (Iowa 2023). MISO appeared as amicus curiae in a subsequent appeal,
acknowledging that "no ROFR rights will be accorded to Iowa projects" following the Iowa court's
decision. (Filing No. 58-1 at 21.) IURC gives the Court no reason to believe MISO will deviate
from this pattern should this Court enjoin enforcement of HEA 1420. Therefore, MISO's public
statements suffice to show a "substantial risk" that, when its Board of Directors meets on December
10, 2024, it will decline to accord rights of first refusal to Indiana incumbents pursuant to HEA
1420.
Considering these requirements together, the Court is satisfied that LSP has standing to
pursue its claims at this stage.

2. Sovereign Immunity
Next, the IURC Defendants argue that LSP is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claim
because the Chairman and Commissioners are state officials to whom the Eleventh Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution grants sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is an affirmative defense
that IURC must prove. See On-Site Screening, Inc. v. United States, 687 F.3d 896, 899 (7th Cir.
2012). Because "the burdens at the preliminary injunction stage track the burdens at trial,"
Gonzalez v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 429 (2006), IURC
must show it is likely to succeed on this defense. See id. at 428–30.
The Eleventh Amendment bars suit against state officials acting in their official capacities
unless, under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), a plaintiff files suit seeking prospective
equitable relief for ongoing violations of federal law. Ind. Prot. & Advoc. Servs. v. Ind. Fam. &
Soc. Servs. Admin., 603 F.3d 365, 370–71 (7th Cir. 2010). The plaintiff must show that the named

state official "plays some role in enforcing the statute" for the exception to apply. Doe v. Holcomb,
883 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2018). The Court "need only conduct a 'straightforward inquiry' into
whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly
characterized as prospective" for Ex parte Young to apply. Indiana Protection, 603 F.3d at 370–
71 (citing Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002)).
Here, LSP alleges that individual state officials tasked with enforcing utility laws commit
an ongoing violation of the Commerce Clause by recognizing rights of first refusal under HEA
1420. LSP also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, which are "paradigmatic examples of
prospective relief." Driftless Area Land Conservancy v. Valq, 16 F.4th 508, 521 (7th Cir. 2021).
Still, the IURC Defendants insist Ex parte Young may not be invoked against state officials who
merely regulate or supervise a particular area of state activity. In their view, IURC's only role with
respect to HEA 1420 is ministerial in nature – namely, to accept and docket notices from Indiana

incumbents wishing to exercise their rights under the statute. In support, IURC relies on Doe v.
Holcomb, 883 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2018), and Peshek v. Johnson, 111 F.4th 799 (7th Cir. 2024), but
both cases are inapposite.
In Doe, the Seventh Circuit held that none among the Governor of Indiana, the Indiana
Attorney General, or a state court official could be sued for violations of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments because they did not play any role in enforcing the name-change statute at issue.
See, e.g., 883 F.3d at 976 (finding the Governor could not be sued because he "was not specifically
charged with a duty to enforce the name-change statute"). Unlike the Indiana officials in that case,
the IURC was "specifically charged" with the duty to enforce laws relating to public utilities,
including HEA 1420. See supra, Section III(A)(1). Similarly, in Peshek, the court found that

Wisconsin law imbued the Attorney General with enforcement authority rather than the defendant
in that case, the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. 111 F.4th at 804. The
plaintiffs had simply sued the wrong defendant. Id. The IURC Defendants identify no Indiana
statute granting enforcement authority to any other state actor. Nor do they explain why the
enforcement authority imposed upon them under Ind. Code § 8-1-2-115 is not enough to pass
constitutional muster. The burden is on the defendants to show a likelihood of success on the
sovereign immunity claim and they have failed to do so here.
To be sure, IURC's role in enforcing HEA 1420 is clear from the text of the statute. HEA
1420 is given effect when IURC accepts notices from incumbents intending to construct, own,
operate and maintain an approved electric transmission facility. Ind. Code § 8-1-38-9(c). IURC
continues in its enforcement role by monitoring the project, including its costs and rate formulas,
and ensuring the incumbent complies with Indiana's utility regulations, id., violations of which
IURC may sanction with monetary penalties, see id. § 8-1-2-115. In sum, IURC plays an

enforcement rather than ministerial role, and its Chairman and Commissioners may be sued in
their official capacities pursuant to Ex parte Young.
3. The Commerce Clause claim
With preliminaries out of the way, the Court may now address the substance of the
Commerce Clause claim. Recall that the dormant Commerce Clause prohibits states from enacting
laws that mandate differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits
the former and burdens the latter. Granholm, 544 U.S. at 472. Almost all state laws and local
regulations touch on interstate commerce in some way, but it is only those laws and regulations
that discriminate against interstate commerce that run afoul of the dormant Commerce Clause.
Regan v. City of Hammond, 934 F.3d 700, 702 (7th Cir. 2019). The Seventh Circuit identifies
discriminatory state laws by placing them in one of three categories, "depending on the degree to
which to which they affect interstate commerce: (1) laws that expressly discriminate against

interstate commerce; (2) laws that, although neutral on their face, bear more heavily on interstate
commerce; and (3) laws that may have a mild effect on interstate commerce but in practice do not
give local firms any competitive advantage over firms located elsewhere." Id. at 703. A law that
falls within the first category is per se unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny that allows the
law to stand only if it serves a legitimate governmental interest for which there are no non-
discriminatory alternatives to furthering that interest. Id.
HEA 1420 grants a right of first refusal to incumbent transmission owners such that they
may avoid competition in pursuit of electric transmission projects. See Ind. Code § 8-1-38-9. As
a reminder, "incumbent electric transmission owner" means a public utility that owns, operates,
and maintains an electric transmission facility in whole or in part in Indiana. Id. § 8-1-38-2. The
Plaintiffs are non-incumbent transmission owners who do not currently own, operate, or maintain
transmission lines in Indiana. As the statute concerns property ownership in the state, it expressly

mandates differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits owners
of transmission facilities in Indiana and burdens owners of transmission facilities outside of
Indiana. Entities, like Intervenor Defendants, that already own, operate, and maintain facilities in
Indiana must do nothing more than inform IURC of their intent to construct or upgrade a
transmission line that connects to one of their existing facilities to avoid competition for new
transmission projects. On the other hand, entities like LSP are required to establish a physical
presence in the state before they may compete in the Indiana electric transmission market.
"Limiting competition based on the existence or extent of a business's local foothold is the
protectionism that the Commerce Clause guards against." NextEra Energy Capital Holdings v.
Lake, 48 F.4th 306, 326 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Granholm, 544 U.S. at 466).

The facts in Granholm are instructive. A New York law permitted local wineries to make
direct wine sales to New York customers on terms not available to out-of-state wineries.
Granholm, 544 U.S. at 470. Out-of-state wineries were permitted to ship to New York customers
only if they established a branch factory, office, or storeroom within the State of New York. Id.
The Supreme Court struck down the law as violative of the dormant Commerce Clause because
although it did not ban direct shipments from out-of-state wineries altogether, requiring them to
establish an operation in New York was just an indirect way of subjecting those wineries to cost-
prohibitive operating requirements to which local wineries were not similarly subject. Id. at 474.
So too, here. HEA 1420, though not a complete ban on out-of-state transmission owners,
erects a barrier to the interstate electric transmission market by limiting who can compete for new
construction projects in Indiana. The right of first refusal in favor of Indiana incumbents runs
contrary to the Supreme Court's admonition that "States cannot require an out-of-state firm to

become a resident in order to compete on equal terms." Id. at 475 (citing Halliburton Oil Well
Cementing Co. v. Reilly, 373 U.S. 64, 72 (1963)).
IURC and the Intervenors defend HEA 1420 on grounds similar to those rejected in
Granholm. They argue that all transmission owners – both in-state and out-of-state – are limited
by the right of first refusal because even new Indiana utilities may not connect to an incumbent's
existing facility. But the Supreme Court has consistently held that it is immaterial that some in-
state businesses are subject to the proscriptions of a discriminatory statute. Dean Milk v. City of
Madison, 340 U.S. 349, 354 n.4 (1951); C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383,
391 (1994); see Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Dep't of Nat. Res., 508 U.S. 353,
361 (1992). The Defendants also ask the Court to follow the Eighth Circuit's reasoning in LSP

Transmission Holdings, LLC v. Sieben, 954 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 2020), but for the following
reasons, the Court declines to do so.
In Sieben, the Eighth Circuit upheld a similar right-of-first-refusal statute enacted by the
Minnesota legislature because Minnesota incumbents included entities headquartered in other
states. 954 F.3d at 1028. The court reasoned that "[i]t would be a different matter … if the state
were to treat a company in another state differently from Minnesota companies" based on where
the company is incorporated or "principally located." Id. "Minnesota's preference is for electric
transmission owners who have existing facilities, and its law applies evenhandedly to all entities,
regardless of whether they are Minnesota-based entities or based elsewhere." Id.
Respectfully, the Court finds the Fifth Circuit's reasoning in Lake to be more persuasive.
In striking down Texas' right-of-first-refusal statute, the Fifth Circuit explained, "if 'place of
incorporation alone' were controlling, 'then a state's dormant Commerce Clause liability would
turn on the empty formality of where a company's articles of incorporation were filed, rather than

where the company's business takes place or where its political influence lies.'" Lake, 48 F.4th at
323 (citing Fla. Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 703 F.3d 1230, 1259 (11th Cir. 2012)).
Furthermore, "[i]n finding dormant Commerce Clause violations, the Supreme Court did not even
mention place of incorporation for the wineries in New York, coal mines in Oklahoma, or dairies
in Madison, Wisconsin that received an unlawful benefit because of their local presence." Id. at
322 (citing Granholm, 544 U.S. at 475; Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437, 457-59 (1992); Dean
Milk, 340 U.S. at 352). The Sieben court does not grapple with Granholm or any of the Supreme
Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence affecting similar state statutes. Accordingly, "[f]or the
concern about in-state interests being able to obtain favorable treatment over out-of-state interests,
local presence, rather than place of incorporation, should matter." Id. at 323.

Regan v. City of Hammond, a Seventh Circuit decision on which the Defendants also rely,
does not change the outcome. In that case, the Hammond municipal code required landlords to
either obtain a license from the city or hire a Hammond-licensed contractor to make repairs to their
property. Regan, 934 F.3d at 702. The ordinance excepted from the license requirement
individuals who lived in the property they wished to repair. Id. The plaintiffs argued that the
ordinance, coupled with the exception, "impermissibly burden[ed] interstate commerce by
imposing costs on property owners who, like Regan, do not reside in Hammond which locally-
domiciled homeowners do not have to pay." Id. The Seventh Circuit disagreed primarily because
"occupant homeowners," to whom the exception applied, were not "similarly situated with
landlords," because they are "not in meaningful competition" with one another. Id. at 704. "Laws
that draw distinctions between entities that are not competitors do not 'discriminate' for purposes
of the dormant Commerce Clause." Id. (citation omitted).
HEA 1420 is no such law. It draws a straightforward distinction between entities that are

direct competitors in the interstate market for electric transmission. Both incumbent and non-
incumbent transmission owners compete for business in Indiana and elsewhere throughout the
Midwest via MISO's regional transmission planning process. The Intervenor Defendants resist
this conclusion on the theory that some incumbents operate in defined service areas as vertically
integrated utilities and, therefore, do not compete with non-incumbents like LSP. The Court is not
persuaded. HEA 1420 accords incumbency status to any public utility that owns a transmission
line in Indiana, including those independent, transmission-only entities like Republic, who
compete with vertically integrated companies such as Intervenor defendants. (Filing No. 58 at 28.)
Therefore, HEA 1420 expressly discriminates against interstate commerce and will stand only if it
serves a legitimate governmental interest for which there is no non-discriminatory alternative.

HEA 1420 cannot withstand strict scrutiny. Although it serves legitimate governmental
interests––promoting transmission reliability, maintaining cost-effective infrastructure, and
continuity of service––Indiana already requires "[e]very public utility … to furnish reasonably
adequate service and facilities." Ind. Code § 8-1-2-4. Thus, the Defendants' proffered reasons for
upholding the statute are insufficient because the state's interests are adequately served by existing,
non-discriminatory utility regulations. Therefore, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of
their dormant Commerce Clause claim.
B. Irreparable Harm and Inadequate Remedy at Law
As explained above, LSP asserts it will suffer irreparable harm for which there is no
adequate remedy at law because absent an injunction, it will be barred from competing for MISO's
Tranche 2.1 projects at the soon-approaching MISO Board meeting. Courts have repeatedly held

that a company is irreparably harmed if it is disadvantaged in—let alone completely barred from—
competing for business opportunities. See, e.g., Ind. Fine Wine & Spirits v. Cook, 459 F.Supp.3d
1157, 1170 (S.D. Ind. 2020) (plaintiff established irreparable harm where protectionist law
threatened to deprive it of “the opportunity to establish its store in Indiana”). Moreover, "the
existence of a continuing constitutional violation constitutes proof of an irreparable harm … and
this principle of law applies to violations of the Commerce Clause." Id. Based on the evidence
before it, the Court is convinced that absent an injunction, MISO will grant its Tranche 2.1 projects
to an incumbent and LSP will have missed out on its opportunity to compete for billions in potential
profits. And because LSP cannot recover monetary damages from the IURC Defendants as state
officials, the Court is satisfied that LSP will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction. E. St.

Louis Laborers' Local 100 v. Bellon Wrecking & Salvage Co., 414 F.3d 700, 703 (7th Cir. 2005).
C. Balance of Harms and Public Interest
Having concluded that, absent an injunction, LSP will suffer irreparable harm for which
there is no adequate remedy at law, the Court now considers whether the balance of harms and
public interest weigh in favor of injunctive relief. These remaining factors merge when, as here,
the government is a defendant. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Cochran, 526 F. Supp. 3d 393, 409 (S.D. Ind.
2021).
LSP asserts that the balance of harms and public interest favor LSP because while
consumers will face economic harm in the form of "unjust" and "unreasonable" transmission rates
without an injunction, "no meaningful equities support[] the state's position." (Filing No. 5 at 31.)
By contrast, the Defendants assert that an injunction will threaten confusion for MISO
stakeholders, undermine the public's interest in lower energy costs, and create fragmentation that
will undermine grid reliability. (Filing No. 45 at 31); (Filing No. 60 at 62).

"When a party establishes that a state law is depriving it of its constitutional rights, the
balance of harms favors injunctive relief. There is no harm to a government agency when it is
prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute." Indiana Fine Wine, 459 F. Supp. 3d at 1171.
The IURC defendants have not presented (and the Court cannot identify) any harm that they will
suffer with the issuance of a preliminary injunction in this case. On the other hand, if an injunction
is not issued, LSP will lose the opportunity to compete for billions of dollars in new transmission
projects and suffer from IURC's violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. Furthermore, the
Intervenor Defendants' concern about chaos and fragmentation on the transmission grid is
unfounded given that all utilities must provide reliable service, and because the Intervenors have
presented no evidence that HEA 1420 was promulgated as a result of such chaos and

fragmentation. The Court is further persuaded by LSP's argument that the equities strongly support
allowing them to compete since the competitive process would likely take up to a year, and there's
no harm to the Defendants as they can still attempt to carry their burden as the litigation goes
forward. Therefore, the balance of harms and public interest favor LSP.
IV. CONCLUSION
LSP has demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its dormant Commerce
Clause claim. LSP has standing to pursue its claims in the first instance, and Ex parte Young
permits its suit against the state officials in their official capacities. In addition, HEA 1420 facially
discriminates against out-of-state economic interests, and it cannot survive strict scrutiny. Any
harm to the Defendants is outweighed by the harm LSP will face absent an injunction.
Accordingly, LSP's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 4) is GRANTED.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), the Court ISSUES A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION prohibiting the Chair and Commissioners of the Indiana Utility Regulatory
Commission, their agents, servants, and employees, and persons acting in concert or participation
with them, from enforcing the rights of first refusal of Indiana Code § 8-1-38-9. LSP need not
post a bond because monetary damages are not at issue in this case.
SO ORDERED.
Date: _ 12/6/2024 A ) 0 q a
PONE an
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
DISTRIBUTION:
Aaron A. Schmoll
LEWIS & KAPPES
aschmoll@lewis-kappes.com
Erin E. Murphy
CLEMENT & MURPHY, PLLC
erin.murphy@clementmurphy.com
James E. Zoccola
LEWIS & KAPPES PC
jzoccola@lewis-kappes.com
Joseph DeMott
CLEMENT & MURPHY, PLLC
joseph.demott@clementmurphy.com
Matthew D. Rowen
CLEMENT & MURPHY, PLLC
matthew.rowen@clementmurphy.com

22

Paul D. Clement
CLEMENT & MURPHY, PLLC
paul.clement@clementmurphy.com

Thomas R Jones
LEWIS & KAPPES
tjones@lewis-kappes.com

Todd Arthur Richardson
LEWIS & KAPPES PC
trichardson@lewis-kappes.com

Bradley Davis
OFFICE OF THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
bradley.davis@atg.in.gov

Jade Poorman
OFFICE OF THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
jade.poorman@atg.in.gov

James A. Barta
OFFICE OF THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
james.barta@atg.in.gov

Jenna Lorence
OFFICE OF THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
jenna.lorence@atg.in.gov

Rebekah Durham
OFFICE OF THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
rebekah.durham@atg.in.gov

Kaitlin O'Donnell
TROUTMAN PEPPER
kaitlin.odonnell@troutman.com

Kevin Michael LeRoy
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
kevin.leroy@troutman.com

Misha Tseytlin
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS, LLP
misha.tseytlin@troutman.com
Sierra Stockley
TROUTMAN PEPPER
sierra.stockley@troutman.com

William R. Derasmo
TROUTMAN PEPPER
william.derasmo@troutman.com

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10756598. Public record. Not legal advice.