Justia Utilities Law Opinion Summaries

An electric utility company sought to recover capital costs it incurred repairing damage from five catastrophic storms that hit Connecticut after it had entered into a settlement agreement with the state’s utility regulator. The settlement agreement, approved in 2018, established new base rates for the company from 2018 through 2020 and created a mechanism—called the new capital tracker—allowing the company to recover certain infrastructure investments. During negotiations, the parties amended the agreement to address storm-related costs, allowing the utility to seek recovery of these costs either in a future rate case or a separate proceeding. The utility initiated a contested case to recover storm operation and maintenance costs but did not seek review or approval of related capital costs at that time, instead seeking to recover those capital costs during an annual rate adjustment in 2021.The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), in its decision on the 2021 rate adjustment, denied the company’s attempt to recover over $17 million in capital costs related to storm repairs in its current base rates, reasoning that the settlement agreement did not unambiguously provide for such recovery and that approval of those costs should occur in a future rate case. The utility appealed. The Superior Court upheld PURA’s decision, deferring to PURA’s rate-making discretion and finding substantial evidence to support its action, without interpreting the disputed sections of the settlement agreement.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the matter and held that the trial court erred by not first interpreting the settlement agreement to determine whether it was clear and unambiguous before deferring to PURA’s discretion. The Supreme Court found the agreement to be ambiguous regarding recovery of storm-related capital costs and concluded that neither the administrative record nor extrinsic evidence resolved this ambiguity. The case was remanded for further proceedings to resolve the contractual ambiguities. View "Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority" on Justia Law

A Maine resident who suffers from a rare and incurable form of blood cancer was a long-time customer of an electric utility that uses smart meters emitting radiofrequency signals to track electricity usage. After the utility received regulatory approval, it allowed customers to keep analog meters for an additional fee, citing health and safety concerns that had been raised but not resolved by the state public utilities commission. The resident, concerned that radiofrequency radiation might worsen his cancer symptoms, requested a waiver of the opt-out fee, supported by a letter from his oncologist. The utility denied the waiver, and after the resident refused to pay the fee, his electric service was disconnected.The resident sued in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fair Housing Act. He also claimed the fee constituted an unlawful surcharge under the ADA. The district court denied the utility’s initial motion to dismiss but, after discovery, granted summary judgment in favor of the utility. The district court limited the resident’s expert witnesses to general, not specific, causation testimony, and excluded the opinions of his treating physicians as untimely disclosed expert testimony. The court found a lack of admissible evidence connecting smart meter radiation to the resident’s health, and held the opt-out fee was not an unlawful surcharge.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. It held that, without timely, admissible expert evidence of specific causation linking the smart meter’s radiation to a non-speculative risk of harm to the resident’s health, the resident’s claims could not survive summary judgment. The court also held that the opt-out fee was not a discriminatory surcharge because waiver of the fee was not required under the ADA. View "Friedman v. Central Maine Power Company" on Justia Law

A public utility company implemented a power-purchase-agreement rider connected to its contractual share in two coal-fired plants operated by a regional power corporation. This rider could result in either surcharges or credits to retail customers, depending on whether the market revenues from selling the plants’ output exceeded their costs. For the years 2018 and 2019, an independent auditor was hired to review the prudency of all costs and sales associated with this rider and to determine if the company’s actions served the best interests of retail ratepayers. The audit found that while the plants cost customers more than the market price for energy, the company's processes were generally consistent with good utility practice. The audit noted that the “must-run” strategy for plant operation might not always be optimal but considered other factors, such as employment and fuel diversity.The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio previously authorized the rider and allowed cost recovery, subject to annual prudency audits. After the independent audit, the Commission held hearings at which parties, including consumer advocacy groups, challenged the prudency of the must-run strategy and raised concerns about the independence of the audit process. They argued that commission staff improperly influenced the auditor and sought to subpoena a staff member for testimony. The Commission denied the subpoena, finding that testimony from other witnesses covered the relevant issues and that the auditor’s independence was not compromised.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the Commission’s findings and procedures. The Court held that the Commission did not commit reversible error in crediting evidence supporting the must-run strategy’s prudency, nor did it violate due process or its own rules by denying the subpoena, since the parties had ample opportunity to cross-examine other key witnesses. The Court also found the Commission was not required to apply an appearance-of-impropriety standard to assess the auditor’s independence. The Commission’s orders were affirmed. View "In re Rev. of the Power-Purchase-Agreement Rider of Ohio Power Co. for 2018 and 2019" on Justia Law

After a motor vehicle accident in Norfolk, Connecticut, downed electrical wires from a utility pole owned by an electric supplier trapped the vehicle’s occupants. First responders waited about an hour before the utility’s specialist confirmed the wires were de-energized, delaying rescue. The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) investigated the supplier’s response, conducted a hearing in which the supplier participated, and ultimately found the response imprudent. PURA ordered the supplier to adopt a thirty-minute target response time for certain life-threatening situations, among other directives.The electric supplier appealed PURA’s decision to the Superior Court, arguing that the investigation and hearing constituted a “contested case” under Connecticut’s Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, which would entitle it to judicial review. The Superior Court rejected this argument, finding that the statutes and regulations cited by the supplier did not require PURA to hold a hearing in these circumstances, and therefore the proceeding did not qualify as a contested case. The court dismissed the supplier’s administrative appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.On further appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the proceeding was not a contested case because no state statute or regulation required PURA to determine the supplier’s legal rights, duties, or privileges after an opportunity for a hearing in this context. The Court explained that references to statutes requiring hearings in other circumstances did not convert the proceeding into a contested case when the relevant factual predicates were absent. The holding also clarified that PURA’s decision to hold a hearing voluntarily, or to follow contested case procedures, did not create contested case status where no such hearing was legally mandated. Thus, PURA’s determinations and orders in this investigation were not subject to judicial review under the contested case provisions. View "Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority" on Justia Law

A longtime Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives was prosecuted in federal court for engaging in extensive bribery schemes. The first involved a major utility company, Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), which, facing financial difficulties, funneled more than $3 million to the defendant’s political associates through intermediaries and sham contracts in exchange for the defendant’s legislative support of ComEd’s agenda over several years. The government presented evidence that these payments resulted in concrete legislative actions by the defendant that benefitted ComEd, including support for specific bills and regulatory changes. The second scheme involved the defendant’s agreement to recommend a Chicago alderman for a state board appointment in exchange for business referrals and benefits to the defendant’s family.Following a lengthy trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the jury convicted the defendant on several counts, including conspiracy, federal-program bribery, honest-services wire fraud, and Travel Act violations. The jury acquitted him on some counts and was deadlocked on others. The district court denied the defendant’s motions for acquittal and for a new trial, then imposed a sentence of imprisonment and a substantial fine.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the adequacy of the jury instructions. The Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence supported each conviction and found no prejudicial error in the jury instructions, including those related to the definition of “official act,” “corruptly,” and the intent elements of bribery. The court also concluded that any potential instructional error regarding state law bribery under the Travel Act was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The convictions and sentence were affirmed. View "USA v. Madigan" on Justia Law

An electric supplier was granted a license to operate in Connecticut in 2007. In 2014, the state’s utility authority began a proceeding to redesign the standard billing format for residential customers, ultimately deciding in 2023 to allocate the costs of this redesign among all licensed electric suppliers, including this supplier. Meanwhile, in 2021, the supplier entered into a settlement agreement with the authority’s enforcement office and other state entities, agreeing to leave the Connecticut market for six years in order to resolve various alleged violations. After the cost allocation decision was issued, the supplier moved to withdraw its license, asserting it had no further obligations to the state.The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) denied the motion to withdraw the license without prejudice, instructing the supplier to pay the allocated assessment before the license could be relinquished. The supplier appealed to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain, arguing that the denial was a final agency decision in a contested case or a declaratory ruling subject to judicial review. The Superior Court granted PURA’s motion to dismiss the appeal, finding that the denial was not a final decision in a contested case and that no declaratory ruling had been issued.On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that the supplier had waived its argument that PURA’s denial was a declaratory ruling, since it had argued the opposite in the Superior Court. The Supreme Court further held that PURA’s denial of the motion to withdraw was not a final decision in a contested case because no statute required PURA to hold a hearing on such a motion. The Court also found that the assessment was not a civil penalty, so statutes requiring hearings before penalties did not apply. Thus, the trial court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was affirmed. View "Clearview Electric, Inc. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority" on Justia Law

A company engaged in electric submetering entered into contracts with the landlords of several apartment complexes, granting it the exclusive right to supply electricity to tenants. These tenants had previously purchased electricity from a traditional utility provider. The submetering company purchased electricity, installed and maintained the necessary distribution and metering equipment, billed tenants directly, set the resale price, and could disconnect service for nonpayment. It profited from the difference between its purchase and resale rates. The landlords received payments from the submetering company but did not control its operations.The utility provider denied requests to convert the complexes to a system allowing the submetering arrangement and filed a complaint with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), alleging the submetering company was operating unlawfully as a public utility. The submetering company counterclaimed that the utility provider’s blanket policy of denying conversion requests was discriminatory. PUCO concluded that the submetering company was not a public utility, reasoning that the tenants were not “consumers” under the statute and that the company was merely acting as the landlords’ agent. Based on this, PUCO denied the utility provider’s claims but ordered the utility to file a new tariff imposing conditions on the submetering company’s activities. PUCO also found in favor of the submetering company on one counterclaim.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that the submetering company is “engaged in the business of supplying electricity to consumers” and thus meets the statutory definition of an “electric light company” and a “public utility” under Ohio law. Accordingly, the court reversed PUCO’s orders, vacated its tariff directive and counterclaim finding, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its holding. View "In re Complaint of Ohio Power Co v. Nationwide Energy Partners, L.L.C." on Justia Law

A ratepayer challenged a final order issued by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission that modified the rates charged by a public utility, the Public Service Company of Oklahoma. The utility had previously been authorized to add a charge to customer bills to pay ratepayer-backed bonds issued in response to high costs from a 2021 extreme weather event, pursuant to the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act. During the rate proceeding, the utility and several other parties presented evidence and entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by the Commission. The appellant, who did not participate in the Commission proceedings, sought reversal of the final order on the grounds that the utility did not provide sufficient evidence of a required audit, and that a Commissioner should have been disqualified. The appellant also attempted a collateral attack on orders from earlier proceedings related to the winter storm charges.The Oklahoma Corporation Commission reviewed and approved the proposed settlement and the stipulated rates after testimony and public comment. The appellant did not object at any stage of the Commission’s process, nor did he submit evidence or raise the issues he later brought on appeal. After the final order was entered, the appellant filed an appeal directly with the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, as permitted by the state constitution.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that while the appellant had standing as a ratepayer to appeal, the issues raised were not exhausted before the Corporation Commission and could not be considered for the first time on appeal. The Court further held that the appellant’s collateral attack on prior Commission orders was both procedurally barred and statutorily prohibited. The Supreme Court affirmed the final order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. View "GANN v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA." on Justia Law

This case involves a challenge to the District of Columbia Public Service Commission’s approval of Potomac Electric Power Company’s (Pepco) 2024–2026 multi-year electric rate plan. The petitioners, the Office of the People’s Counsel and the Apartment and Office Building Association, objected to the Commission’s decision to approve a $123.4 million rate increase following a “legislative-style” hearing that did not permit the presentation or cross-examination of witnesses. The petitioners argued that the process failed to address significant factual disputes, particularly concerning the Effective Rate Adjustment (ERA) and Bill Stabilization Adjustment (BSA), mechanisms affecting rates for large commercial customers. They maintained that an evidentiary hearing was required to resolve these factual disagreements.The Public Service Commission, after receiving written testimony and briefs, denied requests for an evidentiary hearing and approved Pepco’s rate plan with modifications. It concluded that there were no material factual disputes necessitating cross-examination or oral testimony, and thus a legislative-style hearing was sufficient. The Commission also rejected applications for reconsideration, reiterating its view that the contested issues were either legal or policy-based rather than factual. However, there were substantial discrepancies between the parties’ calculations regarding the BSA deferral balances and concerns about the ERA’s impact on certain customer classes.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and determined that this proceeding was a “contested case” under the D.C. Administrative Procedure Act and that the Commission was required to hold an evidentiary, trial-type hearing because there were genuine disputes over material facts. The court held that the Commission’s failure to provide such a hearing rendered its orders unsustainable. Accordingly, the court vacated the Commission’s orders and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the Commission to hold an evidentiary hearing. View "Office of the People's Counsel v. District of Columbia Public Service Commission" on Justia Law

A group of residents opposed the construction of energy and telecommunications projects in Vermont by seeking to intervene in proceedings before the Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC). The PUC granted certificates of public good (CPG) for both projects—one for a solar project and the other for a telecommunications tower. After these decisions, the intervenors filed timely motions under PUC Rule 2.221 to alter or amend the PUC’s orders. The PUC denied both motions, finding that Rule 2.221 incorporated the language of Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and that the intervenors had not met the necessary standard for relief. The intervenors then appealed the denials to the Vermont Supreme Court.The developers moved to dismiss the appeals, arguing that the notices of appeal were filed more than thirty days after the PUC’s final decisions and were therefore untimely. They contended that PUC Rule 2.221 motions did not toll the time to appeal under Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b), as those rules reference only motions filed in the superior court and not with the PUC.The Vermont Supreme Court held that a timely motion to alter or amend filed with the PUC under Rule 2.221 is substantively the same as a Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion. The Court explained that, under Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(5), such motions toll the time for filing an appeal from a PUC decision. The Court distinguished prior cases involving appeals from municipal panels, where the rules did not allow for tolling. Because the intervenors’ motions were timely and tolled the appeal period, the Court denied the motions to dismiss, allowing the appeals to proceed. View "In re Petition of VT Real Estate Holdings 1 LLC" on Justia Law