196 F. Supp. 3d 338
D.R.I.2016Background
- Plaintiffs sued the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Commissioners (official capacities), Deepwater Wind Block Island, LLC, and National Grid seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the PUC’s August 16, 2010 order approving a power purchase agreement (PPA) violated the FPA, PURPA, and the Constitution and would cause above-market electric costs.
- Plaintiffs twice petitioned FERC for enforcement; FERC declined both petitions. Plaintiffs filed this federal suit on August 15, 2015, one day shy of five years after the PUC’s Order.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing (1) the claims are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations, (2) plaintiffs lack standing, and (3) PUC defendants enjoy quasi-judicial immunity.
- Central legal disputes: whether the federal five-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. § 2462 applies or a state-law analog (Rhode Island’s three-year personal injury statute), when the limitations period accrued, and whether administrative exhaustion before FERC was required.
- The court concluded plaintiffs’ suit alleges economic/personal injury from the PUC Order, held § 2462 inapplicable, applied Rhode Island’s three-year personal-injury limitations period, found the limitations period began on August 16, 2010 (the date of the PUC Order), and dismissed the action as time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable statute of limitations | § 2462 five-year period applies because suit enforces federal statutory requirements | State law analog applies; § 2462 applies only to enforcement of civil fines/penalties | State three-year personal-injury statute applies |
| Accrual date for limitations | Claims accrued when harm became imminent (Sept 2014 when permits issued) | Accrual on PUC Order date (Aug 16, 2010); plaintiffs’ complaint shows injury then | Accrual began Aug 16, 2010 |
| Administrative exhaustion before suit | Limitations should toll until FERC declined; exhaustion required for some claims | No exhaustion required here because plaintiffs do not seek review/enforcement of a FERC order or rely on PURPA §210(h)(2)(B) | Exhaustion not required; tolling not applicable here |
| Need to decide standing / quasi-judicial immunity | Plaintiffs claim injury and constitutional/federal statutory violations | Defendants argue lack of standing and immunity | Court did not reach standing/immunity because claims dismissed as time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrett ex rel. Estate of Barrett v. United States, 462 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2006) (federal courts borrow state limitations when Congress has not set a period unless inconsistent with federal law or policy)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1985) (federal law adopts local limitations absent inconsistency)
- Paul v. City of Woonsocket, 745 A.2d 169 (R.I. 2000) (Rhode Island’s three-year personal-injury limitations applies to economic injuries like utility fees)
- Greenwood ex rel. Estate of Greenwood v. New Hampshire Pub. Utilities Comm’n, 527 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2008) (state three-year limitation applied to PURPA-related claim analogous to tortious interference)
- Freehold Cogeneration Assocs., L.P. v. Bd. of Regulatory Comm’rs, 44 F.3d 1178 (3d Cir. 1995) (federal courts have jurisdiction to enjoin state officials from interfering with federal rights; preemption claims present federal question)
- Allco Fin. Ltd. v. Klee, 805 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2015) (PURPA requires administrative exhaustion for qualifying facilities seeking enforcement under § 824a-3(f))
- Aldahonda-Rivera v. Parke Davis & Co., 882 F.2d 590 (1st Cir. 1989) (statute of limitations does not run while administrative remedies must be exhausted)
- Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1988) (challenges to FERC-regulated rates/agreements generally must proceed through FERC review; distinguishes suits that directly challenge state authority)