Markley v. Department of Public Utility Control, 23 A.3d 668

Joe Markley, an electric utility ratepayer, sues the Department of Public Utility Control and its chairman over a financing order issued under P.A. 10-179 to fund deficits.
The financing order requires ratepayers of CL& P and United Illuminating to pay charges, with proceeds directed to the general fund and bond financing.
Markley alleges the order is effectively a tax, issued beyond statutory authority and violative of constitutional rights.
The trial court dismissed on exhaustion and sovereign immunity grounds, sua sponte finding lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
P.A. 10-179 authorizes economic recovery bonds and assigns charges to ratepayers; order implements these charges and equitable allocations between distributors.
The order contemplates a true-up period and potential adjustments through 2018, with service fees to cover administrative costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the order violates equal protection.	Markley asserts an equal protection violation by taxing CL& P ratepayers differently and by unequal burden distribution.	Defendants contend classification is rational and lacks constitutional defect; no essential rights are implicated.	No substantial equal protection claim; rational-basis review applies and burden is permissible.
Whether the defendants exceeded statutory authority under third sovereign-immunity exception.	Original statutory claims claimed the order exceeded authority and taxed ratepayers improperly.	P.A. 10-179 provides clear statutory authority; any later theories are abandoned or lack substantial factual support.	Original statutory claims barred; new theories not adequately developed; sovereign immunity bars the action.
Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was proper grounds for dismissal.	Plaintiff argued exhaustion was or could be futile under the statute.	Exhaustion arguments were insufficient to shield from sovereign-immunity dismissal.	Court did not rely on exhaustion; sovereign immunity forecloses the action.

Gold v. Rowland, 296 Conn. 186 (2010) (sovereign immunity and injunctive relief standards applied to unconstitutional acts)
Columbia Air Servs., Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 293 Conn. 342 (2009) (three exceptions to sovereign immunity; review of complaints on pretrial motions)
Keane v. Fischetti, 300 Conn. 395 (2011) (rational-basis review in equal protection challenges not involving fundamental rights)
Batte-Holmgren v. Commissioner of Public Health, 281 Conn. 277 (2007) (equal protection challenges in taxation contexts; similarity of situated groups)
United Illuminating Co. v. New Haven, 179 Conn. 627 (1980) (taxation of one class versus another permissible under rational basis)
San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973) (tax classifications attract rational-basis deference)
Longley v. State Empl. Retirement Comm., 284 Conn. 149 (2007) (specific vs general statutes control when in conflict)
Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296 (1998) (sovereign immunity discussion in context of injunctive relief)