State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Environmental Defense Fund
716 S.E.2d 370
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- NC REPS requires electric utilities to meet renewability/efficiency standards beginning in 2012, with penalties for noncompliance.
- Duke Energy Carolinas applied to register Buck Steam Station and Lee Steam Station as renewable energy facilities on March 1, 2010, after testing a wood chips and coal fuel blend.
- The Commission held that wood derived from whole trees in primary harvest is a biomass resource and thus a renewable energy resource under § 62-133.8(a).
- The Commission approved Duke’s registrations for Buck and Lee as renewable energy facilities.
- Environmental Defense Fund and NC Sustainable Energy Association appealed the decision; the Public Staff supported the Commission’s ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wood from primary harvest whole trees is a biomass resource under § 62-133.8(a). | Appellees contend wood from whole trees fits biomass and renewable resource definitions. | Appellants argue the term biomass is limited and may be governed by ejusdem generis and an exhaustive list argument. | Biomass includes wood fuel from primary harvest whole trees; wood is a biomass and renewable resource. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. State, 364 N.C. 157 (2010) (plain meaning governs statutory interpretation when clear)
- Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330 (1991) (plain meaning and reasonableness in statutory construction)
- State v. Jackson, 353 N.C. 495 (2001) (importance of plain meaning and unambiguous statutes)
- State v. Lee, 277 N.C. 242 (1970) (ejusdem generis doctrine explained)
- Fenner v. State, 263 N.C. 694 (1965) (doctrine of ejusdem generis requires unity of characteristics)
- Liborio v. King, 150 N.C.App. 531 (2002) (limitations of general terms when paired with specific terms)
- Knight v. Town of Knightdale, 164 N.C.App. 766 (2004) (limitations in statutes, though narrowly construed)
- Capricorn Equity Corp. v. Town of Chapel Hill Bd. of Adjustment, 334 N.C. 132 (1993) (principles for interpreting restrictions in land-use provisions)