25 A.3d 482
R.I.2011Background
- Rhode Island Supreme Court reviews PUC approval of an amended PPA (2010 PPA) for a small offshore wind project off Block Island, under the revised LTC statute § 39-26.1-7 and its four-factor test.
- 2009 LTC statute created a Town of New Shoreham Project with a separate Transmission Cable project and a fixed initial price framework; the 2009 PPA was rejected by the commission for lack of commercial reasonableness.
- Legislature amended LTC in 2010 to permit an amended PPA with a price-savings mechanism, new four-factor test, and explicit deference to an EDC-advisory economic analysis and a DEM environmental advisory.
- National Grid and Deepwater Wind filed the 2010 PPA; the commission approved it in docket 4185 over dissent on one factor, after considering the statutory four-factor test and price-savings mechanics.
- Petitioners Toray Plastics and Polytop challenge the commission’s application of the statute, the four-factor test, the price-savings base, and the treatment of transmission-cable issues; standing matters were resolved with Toray and Polytop having standing, CLF lacking standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the commission properly applied the four-factor test | Toray/Polytop: review standards biased toward approval and misapplied the four factors. | The majority correctly construed the statute and weighed evidence to reflect legislative intent. | Yes; four-factor test properly applied and satisfied. |
| Whether the transmission-cable provisions were required in the 2010 PPA | Cable must be included; costs and obligations must be embedded in the 2010 PPA. | Transmission cable is part of the umbrella project; 2010 PPA need not include binding cable provisions. | No; LTC allows separate transmission-cable arrangements; absence in 2010 PPA not error. |
| Whether the base construction cost and price-savings mechanism were properly applied | Base amount should be $219 million; pricing should reflect that cost; savings should flow to ratepayers. | Base amount could be $205 million; price cap linked to 2009 PPA; savings allocated to ratepayers. | Yes; use of $205 million base and associated price-savings mechanism complied with the statute. |
| Whether the economic-development benefits analysis used the proper standard | A net-benefit test should be used to weigh costs against benefits. | Statute directed to consider benefits with deference to the EDC Advisory, not require a net-benefit test. | Yes; court declined to require net-benefit; substantial deference to EDC advisory was appropriate. |
| Whether the environmental-benefits finding was properly supported | Without a binding transmission cable, environmental benefits are unsupported. | Statute contemplates environmental benefits from the project and the cable; DEM advisory supported finding. | Yes; environmental benefits finding supported by statutory framework and DEM advisory. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kent County Water Authority Change Rate Schedules, 996 A.2d 123 (R.I. 2010) (deferential review for agency findings; channel for statutory interpretation)
- New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 446 A.2d 1376 (R.I. 1982) (standard of review for agency findings; credibility of witnesses)
- Newport Electric Corp. v. Town of Portsmouth, 650 A.2d 489 (R.I. 1994) (credibility determinations are for the commission)
- South County Gas Co. v. Burke, 551 A.2d 22 (R.I. 1988) (deference to commission findings; standard of review)
- Pascoag Apartment Associates, LLC, 950 A.2d 445 (R.I. 2008) (statutory interpretation; deference to agency construction)
- Town of Burrillville v. Pascoag Apartment Associates, LLC, 950 A.2d 435 (R.I. 2008) (unambiguous vs ambiguous statutes; deference seated in context)
- DeSantis v. Prelle, 891 A.2d 873 (R.I. 2006) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent)
- Simeone v. Charron, 762 A.2d 442 (R.I. 2000) (statutory construction principles)
- Pierce v. Pierce, 770 A.2d 867 (R.I. 2001) (plain-meaning rule; when language unambiguous, literal interpretation)