NIAGARA COUNTY v. POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW, YORK
CA 10-00262
| N.Y. App. Div. | Mar 25, 2011Background
- Petitioners filed a CPLR article 78 to annul $544 million in temporary transfers and voluntary contributions from PASNY to the State related to the Niagara Project.
- Individual petitioners, residential electricity consumers, alleged an injury in fact from PASNY’s alleged revenue diversion causing higher future rates.
- Niagara County joined on behalf of residents, seeking to challenge the PASNY payments.
- Supreme Court Niagara County denied the motions to dismiss and granted leave to petitioners to serve a complaint and discovery demands.
- Appellate Division reversed, holding lack of standing/capacity and that budget bills control, with dismissal of the amended petition; petitioners’ federal and state-law theories failed or were preempted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge PASNY payments | Individual petitioners claim injury in fact from future rate impacts | They lack actual injury; only speculative future harm | Lack of standing for individual petitioners |
| County’s capacity and standing to sue | County seeks to maintain on behalf of residents | No capacity or injury in fact; no associational standing | County lacking standing/capacity |
| Federal theory under NRA governs challenge | NRA requires priority for consumers; PASNY payments violate it | NRA does not protect IOU customers purchasing from private utilities | No federal cause of action under NRA; dismissed under CPLR 3211(a)(7) |
| State-law claims supported by documentary evidence | Amended petition alleges unlawful surplus use and improper payments | Budget bills authorize payments; documentary evidence defeats claims | State-law claims dismissed; CPLR 3211(a)(1) supports dismissal |
| Effect of budget legislation over PASNY authority | Payments violate Public Authorities Law to provide lowest rates | Budget bills prevail when in conflict; statutes not violated | Budget bills control; PASNY actions upheld to the extent consistent with budgets |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207 (NY 2004) (standing requires injury in fact, not speculative harm)
- Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d 406 (NY 1987) (threshold standing requires concrete injury beyond general public)
- Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761 (NY 1990) (injury in fact essential to reviewability of governmental action)
- Schlesinger v Reservists to Stop the War, 418 US 208 (US 1974) (injury in fact and justiciability principles; standing constraints)
- Power Auth. of State of N.Y. v Federal Energy Regulatory Commn., 743 F2d 93 (2d Cir. 1984) (NRA interpretation and preference power discussed in context of public vs. private power)
- Allegheny Elec. Coop., Inc. v Federal Energy Regulatory Commn., 922 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1991) (interpretation of NRA provisions and impact on IOU customers)
- Metropolitan Transp. Auth. v Federal Energy Regulatory Commn., 796 F.2d 584 (2d Cir. 1986) (interpretation of federal energy policy and effects on ratepayers)
- People v Zephrin, 14 NY3d 296 (NY 2010) (statutory interpretation of budgetary preemption and special statutes)
- People v Mitchell, 15 NY3d 93 (NY 2010) (noting preemption/override by later-enacted statutes)