95 A.3d 999
Vt.2014Background
- Ecos Energy, LLC sought SPEED standard-offer contracts for multiple solar projects; statute sets a 2.2 MW cap per plant for standard offers under 30 V.S.A. § 8005a(b).
- VEPP administers standard offers; Board can determine whether multiple components on same parcel constitute a single plant under § 8002(12) (now 8002(14)).
- The Board, in 2009, directed VEPP to treat interlinked components sharing infrastructure as a single plant for purposes of the 2.2 MW cap, without a published criterion.
- In 2013 VEPP proposed Bennington (4.0 MW) and Apple Hill (2.0 MW) as potential standard-offer projects; the Board treated them as a single 4.0 MW plant based on location and interconnection.
- The Board subsequently disqualified Apple Hill; the applicant challenged, arguing the projects were independent facilities and should be separately eligible; the court reviews statutory interpretation de novo but defers to agency expertise absent error.
- The court holds the Board erred by treating the Bennington and Apple Hill projects as a single plant under the plain statutory text § 8002(14); the case is remanded for action consistent with the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bennington and Apple Hill are independent facilities or a single plant under § 8002(14). | Bennington and Apple Hill are independent facilities. | They share infrastructure and are on the same parcel, making a single plant. | They are independent facilities under the statute; should be separate plants. |
| Whether the Board's single-plant ruling was consistent with the plain language of § 8002(14). | Plain language supports separate plants. | Statute allows treating shared infrastructure as a single plant. | Board's interpretation was error; remanded for reassessment. |
| Whether the Board added nonstatutory criteria by its 2013 orders. | Board imposed criteria beyond statutory text. | Board acted within discretion to interpret “plant.” | Board's orders reversed; remand for action consistent with statute. |
| Whether the combined capacity of the side-by-side projects fits within 'small' plant definitions. | Combined capacity is within 80 MW limit for small plants under federal law. | Capacity depends on statutory cap and project configuration. | Not dispositive; remand to determine proper eligibility under statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sleigh ex rel. Unnamed Motorists, 178 Vt. 547 (2005 VT 45) (statutory interpretation is a question of law; agency deference limited by reasonableness)
- In re Verizon New Eng., Inc., 173 Vt. 327 (2002 VT ?) (deference to agency expertise but independent statutory interpretation remains an obligation)
- Grice v. Vt. Elec. Power Co., 184 A.3d 956 (2008 VT 64) (strong presumption of validity for agency orders; compelling indication of error required to disturb)
- In re MacIntyre Fuels, Inc., 175 Vt. 613 (2003 VT 59) (statutory interpretation as a legal question; consider legislative intent)