In re Application of Maui Electric Company, Limited.
SCWC-15-0000640
| Haw. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Maui Electric sought PUC approval of an amended power purchase agreement (PPA) with Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. (HC&S) to continue buying power from HC&S’s Puʻunene plant, which burned bagasse plus coal and petroleum. The PPA would alter pricing, remove capacity payments, and extend arrangements through 2017.
- Sierra Club moved to intervene, asserting its members near Puʻunene would be harmed by coal/petroleum emissions and claimed a due process right to participate because the PPA would affect their right to a clean and healthful environment under Hawai‘i Const. art. XI, § 9 and HRS Chapter 269.
- The PUC denied intervention/participation, finding Sierra Club's interests were not distinct from the general public and declined to address the due process claim; the PUC then approved the PPA and allowed fuel data to be filed confidentially.
- Sierra Club appealed to the ICA; the ICA dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction, reasoning the PUC was not required to hold a contested-case hearing and appeals lie only from contested-case orders.
- The Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by environmental laws (notably HRS Chapter 269), can create a protectable property interest triggering due process protections (i.e., a contested-case hearing and intervention/participation rights).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the matter required a contested‑case hearing | Sierra Club: PUC action affects members’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment (art. XI, §9) as defined by HRS Ch. 269, so due process requires a hearing | Maui Elec./PUC: No statutory right to a contested hearing; Sierra Club’s interests are general public concerns, not a property interest | Held: The PUC was required to afford a contested‑case hearing under circumstances presented because Sierra Club asserted a protectable property interest defined by art. XI, §9 and HRS Ch. 269 |
| Whether art. XI, §9 creates a property interest enforceable via due process | Sierra Club: Art. XI, §9 grants substantive right to clean environment defined by laws; that substantive right is a legitimate entitlement (property) | PUC/Maui Elec./dissent: Section 9 does not create a due‑process property interest distinct from remedies like a declaratory action | Held: Art. XI, §9 (as particularized by laws relating to environmental quality, here HRS Ch. 269) creates a protectable property interest triggering due process |
| Whether HRS Chapter 269 counts as “laws relating to environmental quality” that define the right | Sierra Club: Chapter 269 (including HRS §269‑6) requires PUC to consider fossil‑fuel reliance and greenhouse gases, thus defines the protected interest | Opponents: Chapter 269 does not create individualized property rights to invoke due process | Held: HRS Ch. 269 falls within laws that define the constitutional right and thus helps shape a claimant’s entitlement for due process purposes |
| Standing to seek intervention/appeal | Sierra Club: Affidavits show members suffer threatened injury from emissions; environmental injuries suffice for standing | PUC/Maui Elec.: Injuries alleged are general/public; Sierra Club lacks aggrieved‑party status for appeal | Held: Sierra Club met standing—members alleged concrete threatened harms fairly traceable to HC&S operations and redressable by relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Pele Defense Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 881 P.2d 1210 (Haw. 1994) (agency hearing required when government action adversely affects constitutionally protected rights and parties followed agency participation rules)
- County of Hawai‘i v. Ala Loop Homeowners, 235 P.3d 1103 (Haw. 2010) (recognizes substantive right to a clean and healthful environment under art. XI, §9 and discusses public‑interest mootness exception)
- ʻĪao Ground Water Mgmt. Area High‑Level Source Water Use Permit Applications, 287 P.3d 129 (Haw. 2012) (identifies sources of property interests and treats certain environmental/traditional rights as protectable property interests)
- Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City Council of Honolulu, 773 P.2d 250 (Haw. 1989) (articulates two‑step due‑process inquiry for property interests and balancing test for required procedures)
- Kilakila ʻO Haleakalā v. Board of Land & Natural Resources, 317 P.3d 27 (Haw. 2013) (discusses standing and judicial review requirements for agency appeals)