Citizens Against Overhead Power Line Construction v. Connecticut Siting Council
2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 590
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Power company applied to siting council on Oct 20, 2008 for certificates for the state project, comprising Springfield and Manchester portions.
- Siting council granted Springfield portion but denied Manchester portion without prejudice, all under docket 370A.
- Association and consumer counsel were granted party status in the proceedings.
- Power company later petitioned for reconsideration; July 20, 2010 reconsideration granted, affecting Manchester project; findings of fact issued under 370A-MR.
- Plaintiffs filed May 7, 2010 operative complaint in Superior Court appealing the March 16, 2010 decision; trial court later held plaintiffs lacked standing and dismissed.
- Court held that, under §§ 4-181a(a)(4) and 4-183(c), the only final decision from which plaintiffs could appeal was the July 20, 2010 decision; appellate jurisdiction depended on timeliness and aggrievement considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether March 16, 2010 decision was final for appeal | Plaintiffs argued eligibility to appeal later under 4-183(c) | Defendants argued only final decision for appeal was July 20, 2010 | March 16, 2010 not final; July 20, 2010 was final for appeal |
| How 4-181a(a)(4) interacts with 4-183(c) timing | Statutory scheme allows timing flexibility to appeal reconsidered decisions | Appeal window fixed to final reconsidered decision or later events | Agency reconsidered decision replaced original as final for appeal; timeliness limited to late-appeal windows under 4-183(c) |
| Whether §4-183(c) requires latest of four timeframes | There is one permissive timeframe, not all options must run | Text lists four alternatives to appeal; latest applies | Whichever applicable and later governs; not optional piecemeal approach |
| Standing—statutory aggrievement for Citizens | Citizens asserted statutory aggrievement under PUESA | Citizens lacked a protected zone of interest | Citizens not statutorily aggrieved; no standing for classical aggrievement shown |
| Standing—Legere's aggrievement and relief | Legere asserted both statutory and classical aggrievement; sufficient to proceed | Legere lacked classical aggrievement; interest not sufficiently shown | Legere is statutorily aggrieved and has standing; merits remand possible |
Key Cases Cited
- Brouillard v. Connecticut Siting Council, 133 Conn. App. 851 (Conn. App. 2012) (discusses aggrievement and 16-50q; relevance to standing)
- RMS Residential Properties, LLC v. Miller, 303 Conn. 224 (Conn. 2011) (statutory aggrievement and standing principles)
- New England Cable Television Assn., Inc. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 247 Conn. 95 (Conn. 1998) (standing and aggrievement in regulatory appeals)
- Winchester Woods Associates v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 219 Conn. 303 (Conn. 1991) (classical aggrievement framework)
- Fletcher v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 158 Conn. 497 (Conn. 1969) (twofold aggrievement test for standing)
- State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66 (Conn. 2010) (interpretation of statutory language and last antecedent rule)
- Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction, 137 Conn. App. 135 (Conn. App. 2012) (distinction between may and shall in statutes)
- Custodio, State v. Custodio, 126 Conn. App. 539 (Conn. App. 2011) (interpretation of may vs shall in §4-183)
- Housing Authority v. State Board of Labor Relations, 76 Conn. App. 194 (Conn. App. 2003) (earlier standard on timing of appeals before 2006 amendments)