Justia Utilities Law Opinion Summaries

A telecommunications developer sought approval to construct a wireless tower near Lake Willoughby in Westmore, Vermont. Residents of the town, referred to as neighbors, opposed the project, raising concerns about the tower’s impact on aesthetics and its compliance with the Town Plan. The developer filed a petition with the Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC) for a Certificate of Public Good (CPG). The PUC hearing officer deemed the petition administratively complete and set deadlines for intervention and public comment. Neighbors were permitted to intervene, focusing on aesthetic impact and municipal plan compliance. The Town Planning Commission and Selectboard submitted comments both within and after the deadline, expressing mixed views about the tower’s conformity with the Town Plan.The Planning Commission’s late motion for party status and subsequent comments were denied by the hearing officer for untimeliness, citing procedural rules. The PUC excluded comments filed after the deadline and held an evidentiary hearing on the merits. The hearing officer recommended granting the CPG, and the PUC adopted this recommendation in its final order. Neighbors’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and they appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court. The Planning Commission and Selectboard did not appeal.The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the PUC’s decision. It held that neighbors lacked standing to challenge the exclusion of the Planning Commission and Selectboard’s late comments, as they could not assert procedural injury on behalf of the town. The Court found that the PUC gave the required substantial deference to the Town Plan, concluding the tower did not violate clear community standards. The Court also determined that the PUC properly applied the Quechee test in its aesthetics analysis, considering all vantage points and finding the tower’s visibility limited and not offensive to the average viewer. The PUC’s findings and legal conclusions were upheld as rational and supported by the record. View "In re Petition of Industrial Tower and Wireless LLC" on Justia Law

A group of organizations and individuals challenged the constitutionality of a statewide initiative approved by Washington voters in November 2024. The initiative, known as I-2066, enacted broad changes to energy regulation, including requirements for utilities and local governments to ensure natural gas access, restrictions on local air quality regulators, removal of zero-emission goals from state law, amendments to the Decarbonization Act, and limitations on the state building code council’s authority regarding gas usage and transitions away from fossil fuels.The King County Superior Court reviewed the case following cross-motions for summary judgment by the parties. The court declared I-2066 unconstitutional in its entirety, finding that it violated three constitutional requirements: it impermissibly encompassed more than one subject, failed to include its subjects in the title, and failed to set forth the laws it amended. This judgment was appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the superior court’s ruling de novo. The court held that I-2066 violated the single-subject requirement of article II, section 19 of the Washington Constitution. It found that the initiative combined several distinct subjects with separate regulatory effects, lacking the necessary rational unity among its provisions. The court concluded that the provisions introducing distinct subjects were not severable and thus rendered the entire initiative unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment on the narrower ground of the single-subject violation and did not address the other constitutional arguments raised. View "Climate Sols. v. State" on Justia Law

Berwick Solar, LLC entered into an interconnection agreement with Central Maine Power Company (CMP) in March 2020 to connect its solar generation facility to CMP’s electric distribution system. The agreement estimated costs, but Berwick Solar opted not to obtain a detailed facilities study. After the project became operational in May 2021, CMP failed to issue cost reconciliation statements within the deadlines set by both the governing regulation and the agreement. CMP eventually sent a series of reconciliation statements, each seeking progressively lower amounts, but Berwick Solar disputed their timeliness and contended that CMP was required to provide further documentation for the costs.The dispute was not resolved through informal procedures, so Berwick Solar sought formal adjudication before the Maine Public Utilities Commission. After receiving testimony and briefs, the Commission dismissed Berwick Solar’s complaint, concluding that the regulation required Berwick Solar to pay the actual interconnection costs regardless of CMP’s untimely statements. The Commission also found that CMP was not obliged to provide original purchase orders or invoices, and Berwick Solar had not been prejudiced by the delay since the costs decreased over time. The Commission further declined to address Berwick Solar’s arguments about pooled overhead costs, noting those were not central to the dispute and had resulted in reduced costs for Berwick.Upon appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Commission’s order. The Court held that CMP’s failure to issue reconciliation statements within the prescribed sixty-day period did not relieve Berwick Solar of its obligation to pay actual interconnection costs, including pooled overhead costs. CMP is not required to provide purchase orders or invoices unless requested through formal discovery. The Court also found competent evidence supporting the Commission’s finding that Berwick Solar was not prejudiced by the delay. Judgment was affirmed. View "Berwick Solar, LLC v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

Denver Water, a municipal utility, faced a projected water shortage and vulnerability due to overreliance on its South System. To address these concerns, Denver Water proposed expanding Gross Reservoir by raising the dam, which would increase storage capacity and allow diversion of water from the Fraser and Williams Fork Rivers. Because the project would impact wetlands, Denver Water applied for a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers in 2003. The Corps conducted a fourteen-year review, considering environmental and logistical impacts, and ultimately issued the permit in 2017. Denver Water began and substantially completed the $600 million expansion by 2026, but was unable to fill the reservoir due to litigation.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado reviewed the project after Save the Colorado and other environmental groups challenged the Corps’s permit under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The plaintiffs alleged the Corps defined the project’s purpose too narrowly, failed to adequately analyze costs, and did not sufficiently consider climate change’s impact on feasibility. The District Court agreed, finding violations of both statutes, vacating the permit and environmental reviews, and issuing a permanent injunction against water diversion and further enlargement activities.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit examined whether the Corps’s review and permitting decisions were arbitrary or capricious. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the Corps appropriately considered multiple related project purposes and reasonably evaluated cost and climate change impacts. The court found that the Corps’s determinations were supported by the record and not arbitrary or capricious. The main holding was that the Corps did not violate the CWA or NEPA, thus the district court’s judgment was reversed, the permanent injunction vacated, and the case remanded with instructions to enter judgment against the plaintiffs. View "Save The Colorado v. Graham" on Justia Law

Consumers Energy Company, a private utility in Michigan, planned to retire the J.H. Campbell Generating Plant, a decades-old coal facility, and replace it with newer, cleaner, and more reliable energy sources. The proposed closure and replacement plan underwent extensive review by the Michigan Public Service Commission and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), both of which ultimately approved it after finding that the substitute resources would meet reliability standards and improve affordability and environmental outcomes. As the retirement date neared, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued an order under section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, compelling Consumers Energy to keep the Campbell plant operational, citing an energy emergency in the region.The Michigan Public Service Commission approved the integrated resource plan after a contested case proceeding, finding that it would enhance resource adequacy. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s approval. MISO also determined that Campbell’s retirement, as planned, would not threaten reliability. Consumers Energy documented sufficient capacity to meet projected demand, and MISO’s resource auction confirmed adequate supply and reserve margins for the relevant period. No state or regional entity requested FERC intervention, nor did the Michigan governor declare an energy emergency.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the DOE’s order. The court held that section 202(c) grants DOE limited, emergency authority to intervene only when an electricity shortage creates an acute risk that cannot be timely addressed by state or regional planning, and immediate federal action is necessary. The court found that DOE’s asserted circumstances did not constitute such an emergency, as reasonable alternatives existed and the state had adequately planned for resource adequacy. Accordingly, the court granted the petitions for review and vacated DOE’s order. View "People of the State of Michigan v. DOE" on Justia Law

A public utility owned by a municipality owned poles used for distributing electric power. Other companies, such as telephone and cable providers, attached their equipment to these poles under agreements with the utility. In 1984, one such agreement allowed a cable company’s predecessor to attach equipment in exchange for an annual fee, with an escalator clause for potential increases. The contract required both parties to comply with all applicable laws that affected their rights and obligations. Over time, the cable company (later known as Spectrum) paid increasing rates, while another company (AT&T) continued to pay the original rate. After changes to state law in 2005 prohibited discrimination in pole-attachment rates and capped those rates at a federal maximum, the utility began invoicing both companies at the higher rate. Spectrum paid the higher invoices, but AT&T continued to pay the older, lower rate.Legal disputes ensued. Spectrum sued the utility, arguing the utility had breached the contract and violated statutory requirements by charging discriminatory rates. After initial proceedings before the Public Utility Commission and the trial court, the Third Court of Appeals held that the utility had not violated the statute because it had invoiced both companies at the same rate, and the Thirteenth Court of Appeals later ruled that the contract did not incorporate new statutory requirements arising after the agreement’s formation.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case. It determined that the parties’ contract, by its express language, incorporated future changes in law affecting the parties’ rights and obligations. The court held that the relevant statutory provisions applied to the agreement and that Spectrum could pursue its breach-of-contract claim based on the utility’s alleged failure to comply with these laws. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "SPECTRUM GULF COAST, LLC v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO" on Justia Law

A group of utility companies operating nuclear power plants in Maine, Connecticut, and Massachusetts entered into contracts with the Department of Energy (DOE) requiring DOE to dispose of their spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in exchange for fees paid into a federal fund. DOE failed to meet its obligations, resulting in the utilities retaining and storing SNF on-site beyond their planned plant decommissioning. To ensure funds for safe decommissioning and continued SNF storage, the utilities established nuclear decommissioning trusts (NDTs), funded by electricity ratepayers and managed according to federal regulations. These trusts generated significant investment gains, which were used to pay for ongoing SNF storage expenses.Previously, the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found DOE in partial, ongoing breach of the contracts, awarding damages to the utilities for costs incurred due to the breach. In the current claim period (2017–2021), the utilities sought reimbursement for $145 million in SNF storage costs. DOE conceded liability but argued that the investment gains from the NDTs should be credited against damages, effectively reducing its liability to zero. The Court of Federal Claims rejected this argument, granting summary judgment to the utilities and entering judgment for the full $145 million, subject to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Court of Federal Claims’ grant of summary judgment de novo. It held that the investment gains from the NDTs are not “mitigation” of damages and cannot be set off against the utilities’ breach-induced expenses, because the gains did not reduce or avoid losses caused by DOE’s breach and were not directly related to the breach. The court affirmed the judgment, requiring DOE to reimburse the utilities for their SNF storage costs without offset for NDT investment earnings. View "CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. v. US" on Justia Law

During Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, El Paso Electric Company (EPE) relied on the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Unit 3 (PV3) to supply uninterrupted electricity to its New Mexico customers amid extreme weather and soaring natural gas prices. EPE used a Commission-approved proxy price formula, based on natural gas market index prices, to calculate the incremental costs associated with PV3-generated energy during the storm. The City of Las Cruces challenged EPE’s entitlement to recover these increased costs at the proxy price rate, focusing on whether the proxy price mechanism was appropriately applied.EPE sought a variance from the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (NMPRC) to amortize the extraordinary cost increases over twelve months, which was not contested. Instead, intervenors raised legal objections to the use of the PV3 proxy price. The NMPRC conducted administrative proceedings, during which it found that the proxy price formula established in prior cases—including the 2009 Credit Suisse Agreement—remained valid and had been reaffirmed in subsequent orders. The Commission determined that PV3 was the most cost-effective resource during the storm and that EPE’s use of the proxy pricing formula was appropriate. The Commission’s final orders authorized EPE to recover the costs for PV3 energy based on the proxy price.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reviewed the Commission’s orders. It adopted a highly deferential standard to the NMPRC’s interpretation of its own prior orders and found the Commission’s actions reasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and not arbitrary or capricious. The Court held that the City had not demonstrated that EPE’s use of PV3 at the proxy price or the Commission’s orders were unlawful or unreasonable, and it affirmed the Commission’s orders in full. View "City of Las Cruces v. Public Regulation Commission" on Justia Law

In May 2023, law enforcement officers in North Dakota responded to a report of gunshots fired into electrical equipment at a substation owned by two power cooperatives. Near the scene, officers searched a car and found a gun case and medication labeled with Cameron Smith’s name. A tow truck employee identified Smith as the driver and indicated he had dropped Smith off at a nearby hotel. Officers located Smith at the hotel, detained him, and obtained surveillance footage showing him with duffel bags later found in a dumpster. The bags contained firearms and ammunition matching shell casings at the substation. Officers obtained warrants to test the bags for DNA and to search Smith’s residence and devices. Smith was charged with destruction of an energy facility in North Dakota and later in South Dakota for a similar incident.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota denied Smith’s motion to suppress evidence, ruling that the evidence would have been inevitably discovered even absent the challenged searches. Smith then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. At sentencing, the district court applied a 12-level upward departure under the sentencing guidelines and imposed consecutive sentences totaling 300 months, plus over $2 million in restitution.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of Smith’s motion to suppress, finding that the modified warrant affidavit supported probable cause and that the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. The court also concluded that Smith’s appeal waiver barred his challenge to the restitution order. However, the appellate court found procedural error in the calculation of the sentencing guideline range, holding that the evidence did not support a finding that Smith’s motive was to intimidate or coerce a civilian population as required for the sentencing departure. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

A California corporation that manufactures medical devices sought to connect two properties it owns, separated by a public street, into a single microgrid using its own private equipment. The microgrid would supplement its energy needs by drawing power from the local regulated utility when necessary. The company claimed it had obtained local approvals and that its microgrid complied with Public Utilities Code section 218, which defines when an entity is not considered a regulated "electrical corporation." However, Southern California Edison (SCE) declined to support the company’s plan, citing concerns about safety and operational control, and asserting that it had discretion to deny facility modifications or connections that could affect its distribution system.The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) initiated a rulemaking process to develop a policy framework for microgrids, as mandated by Senate Bill No. 1339. In the fifth phase of this process, the PUC adopted tariffs for multi-property microgrids proposed by investor-owned utilities but declined to adopt the company’s proposed changes to SCE’s tariff rules. The PUC found that the company’s proposals could allow an unregulated entity to compel changes to, or control, regulated utility infrastructure, potentially compromising safety and reliability. The company’s application for rehearing was denied, with the PUC reiterating that the proposed rule changes conflicted with statutory requirements, including sections 218, 399.2, and 451.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the PUC’s decisions. The court held that the PUC had not abused its discretion, misinterpreted the statutes, or failed to proceed as required by law. It found that the PUC’s decisions were consistent with applicable law and legislative intent, particularly the priority given to safety and the requirement that regulated utilities maintain control over their distribution systems. The court affirmed the PUC’s decisions. View "Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law