In re Petition of Stowe Cady Hill Solar, LLC, 182 A.3d 53

Cady Hill filed a CPG application for a 496 kW group net‑metered solar project on December 30, 2016—two days before the new Rule 5.100 took effect on January 1, 2017.
Under the pre‑2017 Rule 5.100 an application is “complete” if it substantially complies with filing requirements; applicants must give adjoining landowners advance notice and contemporaneous notice of filing.
Cady Hill’s developer provided full 45‑day advance notice to all required recipients and submitted a correct adjoining‑landowner list with the application; contemporaneous notice was sent to owners of eight of nine adjoining parcels, but two landowners (owning one parcel together) were inadvertently not given contemporaneous notice at the time of filing.
Cady Hill sent the omitted notice and notified the Commission on January 5, 2017; the Commission held the application incomplete until that cure date and applied the new Rule 5.100, then dismissed the application.
The Court considered whether the application was complete as of filing (so governed by the prior rule) and whether the Commission’s completeness determination merited deference.

Issue	Cady Hill's Argument	Department/Commission's Argument	Held
Whether Cady Hill’s application was “complete” on Dec 30, 2016	Application substantially complied with pre‑2017 rule—advance notice given, accurate landowner list, only a single inadvertent clerical omission to contemporaneous notice	An omission in contemporaneous notice rendered the filing substantially insufficient until cured on Jan 5, 2017, so new rule applies	Court held application was complete as of Dec 30, 2016 and thus governed by pre‑2017 Rule 5.100
Standard of review / deference to Commission’s interpretation of its own rule	Commission’s completeness application must be consistent with its prior practice; no special expertise justifies deference here	Commission’s interpretation is entitled to deference as an agency applying its rules and implementing legislative policy shift	Court declined to defer to Commission because its application contradicted its prior precedent and statutory directive; reviewed and reversed Commission decision

In re UPC Vt. Wind, LLC, 185 Vt. 296, 969 A.2d 144 (Vt. 2009) (describing deference to Commission merits decisions)
Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (agency interpretations of their own regulations ordinarily afforded deference)
Westar Energy, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm., 473 F.3d 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (agency must treat like cases alike)
Norfolk S. R.R. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344 (2000) (agency interpretations that contradict prior constructions are not owed deference)
In re Nehemiah Assocs., Inc., 168 Vt. 288, 719 A.2d 34 (Vt. 1998) (deference to agency interpretation of its own regulation unless inconsistent with statute)