IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF L. 2012, C. 24, THE SOLAR ACT OF 2012, ETC. (BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES)
A-4666-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Brickyard, LLC sought approval for a two-phase solar project; Phase II required completion by May 31, 2016 to qualify under N.J.S.A. 48:3-87(q) (Solar Act) for EY2015 benefits.
- The Board of Public Utilities originally disapproved Phase II; Brickyard appealed and settled, after which the Board approved Phase II via the settlement.
- After settlement, the Board notified Brickyard in June 2015 of the May 31, 2016 completion deadline; Brickyard did not object then.
- Brickyard later requested an extension beyond May 31, 2016; the Board denied the extension in a May 25, 2016 final decision.
- Brickyard argued the settlement permitted later completion, or alternatively that the Board acted arbitrarily by denying its extension while granting an extension to True Green, a similarly situated applicant.
- The Appellate Division reviewed the settlement de novo, found it unambiguous as setting the May 31, 2016 deadline, but remanded because the Board failed to meaningfully distinguish Brickyard’s extension request from True Green’s or explain disparate treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement allowed completion after May 31, 2016 | Settlement permits completion later than May 31, 2016 | Settlement is unambiguous and imposed the May 31, 2016 deadline | Settlement unambiguous; required completion by May 31, 2016 |
| Whether Board acted arbitrarily by denying Brickyard an extension while granting True Green one | Board treated similar applicants differently without explanation; extension should be granted | Board relied on the settlement deadline and treated Brickyard differently because approval arose from settlement | Remanded: Board failed to meaningfully explain distinction or apply same considerations; must reconsider and explain |
| Standard of review for interpreting the settlement | N/A (Brickyard seeks favorable interpretation) | Agency and court apply de novo review of contracts/settlements | Court applied de novo review and found settlement unambiguous |
| Whether appellate court should decide equities or remand for agency factfinding | Brickyard sought relief based on equitable factors | Board is better positioned to weigh equitable considerations and explain decision | Remand required so Board can provide reasoned comparison with True Green and reconsider extension request |
Key Cases Cited
- GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Willoughby, 230 N.J. 172 (2017) (contracts and settlements reviewed de novo)
- In re Implementation of L.2012, c.24, 443 N.J. Super. 73 (App. Div. 2015) (context on Solar Act implementation and subsidies)
- Bailey v. Bd. of Review, 339 N.J. Super. 29 (App. Div. 2001) (agency decisions require careful factual consideration for deference)
- N.J. Bell Tel. Co. v. Commc'ns Workers, 5 N.J. 354 (1950) (principles governing appellate deference to agencies)
- Green v. State Health Benefits Comm'n, 373 N.J. Super. 408 (App. Div. 2004) (agency must explain its reasoning when treating similarly situated parties differently)