289 A.3d 164
R.I.2023Background
- The Episcopal Diocese proposed a solar array project in Glocester; Narragansett (National Grid) conducted interconnection and “affected system operator” studies and warned the diocese it might be charged transmission/interconnection costs.
- The diocese petitioned the Rhode Island PUC for declaratory relief (Oct. 2019) challenging Narragansett’s authority to impose those costs; the PUC issued an April 14, 2020 order permitting the charges.
- The diocese sought certiorari to the Rhode Island Supreme Court; after the writ issued it submitted newly discovered evidence involving communications between Narragansett and the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers and an APRA finding.
- The Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings under § 39-5-5; on remand the PUC reaffirmed its April 2020 order and explained the new evidence did not change its legal conclusions.
- Subsequent to the PUC’s April 2020 order (and during remand), affected-system studies concluded the diocese’s project would not impact the transmission system, and Narragansett decided not to assess the challenged interconnection costs, and reimbursed study costs.
- The Supreme Court considered whether this subsequent determination mooted the diocese’s challenge and whether mootness exceptions applied, and ultimately dismissed the appeal as moot and remanded the record to the PUC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness: Is the dispute still justiciable after Narragansett declined to charge the costs? | The diocese argued its appeal remains live because the PUC declarations have future regulatory and industry effects and could affect future projects. | Narragansett/PUC argued the challenged costs never materialized for this project, so no live controversy exists. | Case is moot because Narragansett’s decision eliminated any practical effect of a judgment. |
| Extreme-public-importance exception to mootness | Diocese asserted the issue affects renewable-energy development statewide and implicates due-process concerns. | PUC argued the matter does not implicate the narrow categories (constitutional rights, livelihoods, voting) that qualify as ‘‘extreme public importance.’' | Exception not met; the dispute does not implicate those narrow, exceptional concerns. |
| Voluntary-cessation exception | Diocese contended Narragansett’s cessation (declining to charge) was voluntary and might recur; thus the Court should decide merits. | PUC/Narragansett contended the decision flowed from study results and regulatory constraints, so recurrence is not reasonably expected. | Exception inapplicable: cessation resulted from objective study outcomes and regulatory limits, so recurrence is unlikely. |
| Due process / bias in PUC proceedings | Diocese alleged biased proceedings based on PUC counsel’s questioning, a conflict of interest, and communications between Narragansett and the Division. | PUC argued counsel’s involvement did not violate statutory conflict rules and communications with the Division did not amount to a due-process violation. | Court found allegations insufficient to show a constitutional due-process violation; claims did not make the case one of extreme public importance. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Cranston v. Rhode Island Laborers’ District Council, Local 1033, 960 A.2d 529 (R.I. 2008) (mootness and justiciability principles for declaratory relief)
- State v. Lead Industries Ass’n, Inc., 898 A.2d 1234 (R.I. 2006) (functional limits on judicial review and case-or-controversy analysis)
- Morris v. D’Amario, 416 A.2d 137 (R.I. 1980) (refusal to decide moot, abstract, or hypothetical questions)
- Bucci v. Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, 68 A.3d 1069 (R.I. 2013) (standard for voluntary-cessation mootness exception)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (voluntary cessation standard: must be absolutely clear the wrongful behavior cannot reasonably be expected to recur)
- H.V. Collins Co. v. Williams, 990 A.2d 845 (R.I. 2010) (court will not issue advisory opinions)
- Boyer v. Bedrosian, 57 A.3d 259 (R.I. 2012) (availability of judicial review defeats certain mootness exceptions)
- Rhode Island Housing & Mortgage Finance Corp. v. Gordon, 275 A.3d 559 (R.I. 2022) (procedural waiver principles and appellate review standards)