Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 02 CH 18158. Honorable Aaron Jaffe Judge Presiding.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Hall
Resource Technology Corporation (RTC) is a Delaware corporation that presently owns and operates approximately 15 electric generating facilities in Illinois, including the facility located at 14732 East 2100 North Road, Pontiac, Illinois (Pontiac Facility). All of the electric generating facilities, including the Pontiac Facility, are primarily fueled by landfill-generated methane gas.
 RTC appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the Illinois Commerce Commission's (Commission) motion to dismiss RTC's complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and denying RTC's motion for summary judgment on its request for the declaratory ruling.
On appeal, RTC contends that: (1) the Commission's proposed review of the Pontiac Facility's status as a "qualified solid waste energy facility" (QSWEF) pursuant to section 8-403.1(b) of the Illinois Public Utilities Act, commonly referred to as the "Retail Rate Law" (220 ILCS 5/8-403.1(b) (West 2000)), is preempted by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) (16 U.S.C. § 824a-3 (2000)); (2) a facility's status as a QSWEF under state law is automatically established when the facility files a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) certification as a "qualified facility" (QF) pursuant to PURPA or a notice of application for such certification; and (3) the trial court erred by relying on the statutory phrase "possesses characteristics," contained in section 8-403.1(b) of the Retail Rate Law, in finding that the Commission possessed the authority to reevaluate the Pontiac Facility's fuel usage rate as it related to the facility's status as a QSWEF. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
On July 1, 1996, all of RTC's then proposed facilities, including the Pontiac Facility, were certified as a QF pursuant to PURPA.*fn1 Thereafter, in early 1997, RTC filed verified petitions with the Commission requesting that the proposed facilities, including the Pontiac Facility, be certified under state law as QSWEFs pursuant to section 8-403.1(b) of the Retail Rate Law (220 ILCS 5/8-403.1(b) (West 2000)).*fn2 See Resource Technology Corp., Ill. Comm. Comm'n Nos. 97-0031 to 97-0045 (cons.) (October 8, 1997). On October 8, 1997, the Commission determined that each of the proposed facilities met the requirements of a QSWEF under the Retail Rate Law, thereby entitling the facilities to receive a "retail rate." See Resource Technology Corp. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 343 Ill. App. 3d 36, 38-40, 795 N.E.2d 936 (2003).
On July 10, 2002, the Commission issued a citation order to initiate proceedings against RTC to determine whether the Pontiac Facility continued to meet the criteria necessary to remain a QSWEF. Illinois Commerce Comm'n v. Resource Technology Corp., Ill. Comm. Comm'n No. 02-0461 (July 10, 2002). The citation order was prompted by a Commission staff report alleging that the Pontiac Facility no longer qualified as a QSWEF because of three violations: it was operating over its configured capacity of 10 megawatts; it was using fossil fuel (natural gas) as its primary fuel rather than landfill-generated methane gas; and it had failed to file biannual and annual reports for years 1998 to 2001.
In response to the Commission's citation order, RTC filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the Commission's proceedings on the ground that the Commission's action was preempted by PURPA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder by FERC. Specifically, RTC claimed that the Commission was invading the exclusive jurisdiction of FERC by attempting to determine if the Pontiac Facility was entitled to remain certified as a QF under PURPA. RTC also sought a declaratory ruling on the preemption issue and summary judgment on its request for the declaratory ruling.
After hearing arguments from both sides and considering the presented briefs, the trial court granted the Commission's motion to dismiss the complaint and denied RTC's motion for summary judgment. In arriving at its decision, the trial court stated that the "main issue raised is whether the Commission has the authority, as a matter of law, to make its own determination that facilities such as Pontiac meet and maintain the criteria of QSWEFs independent of any determination of concurrent federal certification." The trial court reasoned that even though section 8-403.1(b) of the Retail Rate Law required a facility to, among other things, "possess characteristics" necessary to qualify as a QF under federal law before it could qualify as a QSWEF under state law,*fn3 this requirement did not invade the federal jurisdiction of FERC because the statute did not give the Commission the power to certify or decertify a facility as a QF under federal law.
The trial court determined that section 8-403.1(b) of the Retail Rate Law was not preempted by PURPA, but rather, was intended to work within the framework of PURPA. RTC now appeals from the trial court's decision.
RTC first contends that the Commission's proposed proceeding to review whether the Pontiac Facility is in violation of FERC fuel usage regulations (i.e., whether the facility was using natural gas as its primary fuel rather than landfill-generated methane gas) is preempted by PURPA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder by FERC. Specifically, RTC claims that the Commission's review of the Pontiac Facility's QSWEF status based on alleged violation of FERC fuel usage regulations is preempted by PURPA because it would invade FERC's exclusive jurisdiction to determine a QF's fuel usage rate.*fn4 We must reject RTC's contentions.
Pursuant to the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2), Congress has the authority to preempt state law. English v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72, 78-79, 110 L.Ed. 2d 65, 74-75, 110 S.Ct. 2270, 2275 (1990). In determining whether Congress has preempted state law, a reviewing court's task is to discern congressional intent. English, 496 U.S. at 78-79, 110 L.Ed. 2d at 74, 110 S.Ct. at 2275. This analysis begins with the assumption that Congress did not intend to displace state law. Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746, 68 L.Ed. 2d 576, 595, 101 S.Ct. 2114, 2129 (1981). The question of whether a federal enactment preempts a state statute is a question of law subject to de novo review. Cress v. Recreation Services, Inc., 341 Ill. App. 3d 149, 173, 795 N.E.2d 817 (2003).
Under the supremacy clause, a federal enactment can preempt a state statute in three circumstances. First, Congress can expressly state an intent to preempt state law (express preemption); second, intent to preempt may be reasonably inferred where federal regulation is so comprehensive that there is no room for supplementary state regulation or because the field is one in which the federal interest is so dominant that it displaces state regulation on the same subject (implied or field preemption); and third, state law is preempted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law (conflict preemption). English, 496 U.S. at 78-79, 110 L.Ed. 2d at 74-75, 110 S.Ct. at 2275; Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293, 299-300, 99 L.Ed. 2d 316, 325, 108 S.Ct. 1145, 1150 (1988). Conflict preemption may occur where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal ...