Appeal of Hollingworth, s. 82-125
Decision Date | 10 December 1982 |
Docket Number | Nos. 82-125,82-126,s. 82-125 |
Citation | 122 N.H. 1028,453 A.2d 1288 |
Parties | Appeal of Beverly HOLLINGWORTH and Roberta Pevear. Appeal of The NEW HAMPSHIRE CIVIL DEFENSE AGENCY (New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission). |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Shaheen, Cappiello, Stein & Gordon, Concord (Robert A. Stein, Concord, on the brief and orally), for Beverly Hollingworth and Roberta Pevear.
Gregory H. Smith, Atty. Gen. (Peter C. Scott, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief and orally), for the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency.
Sulloway, Hollis & Soden, Concord (Margaret H. Nelson, Concord, on the brief and orally), for Public Service Co. of New Hampshire.
These cases present the question whether the chairman of the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (PUC) acted properly in approving certain requests for assessment of costs, pursuant to RSA chapter 107-B (Supp.1981), in connection with the preparation of a nuclear emergency evacuation plan for the Seacoast area surrounding the site of the Seabrook nuclear power plant. We affirm.
Beverly Hollingworth and Roberta Pevear, State representatives from Hampton and Hampton Falls, respectively, brought this appeal challenging assessments made by PUC Chairman Michael Love for the cost of preparing an emergency evacuation plan for fifteen New Hampshire and seven Massachusetts communities within a ten-mile radius of Seabrook Station, which is currently under construction. The preparation of an evacuation plan in anticipation of a potential nuclear emergency is a prerequisite to the issuance of an operating license for the Seabrook plant by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In order to develop an emergency preparedness plan that would comply with federal regulations, and "in order to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of this state, particularly those in close proximity to" the Seabrook plant, Laws 1981, 549:1, the legislature enacted RSA chapter 107-B (Supp.1981). This legislation vests authority in the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency (CDA), "in cooperation with affected local units of government," to formulate such a plan, and authorizes the chairman of the PUC to assess the costs incurred to the electric utilities that will operate the nuclear plant, in this case Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH). RSA 107-B:1 I (Supp.1981).
On October 20, 1981, the CDA entered into a contract with the engineering firm of Costello, Lomasney, de Napoli, Inc., of Manchester, requiring the firm to develop a nuclear emergency evacuation plan for the Seacoast communities surrounding the Seabrook plant. No public hearings were held prior to execution of the agreement, and officials of the affected towns were not involved in the selection and hiring of the engineering firm or in determining the scope of the evacuation plan itself. The CDA subsequently requested and received approval of the contract from the Governor and Executive Council. In addition, the Governor and Council, also at the CDA's behest, established a budget for the receipt and disbursement of $679,000 to Costello, Lomasney, de Napoli, Inc., to fund the contract. This sum was to be raised by fees assessed against PSNH pursuant to RSA chapter 107-B (Supp.1981).
In November 1981, the PUC chairman conducted three days of hearings on the CDA's requested assessment of $772,635: $679,000 in engineering fees; $24,635 charged by the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency for evacuation planning in Massachusetts communities within the ten-mile evacuation area; and $69,000 in New Hampshire CDA expenses. Among those testifying at the hearings were Representatives Hollingworth and Pevear, who argued that the chairman should not recognize the requested assessments because they were made without a reasonable opportunity for public comment on the factors to be addressed during the formulation of the evacuation plan.
On January 5, 1982, the chairman approved in full the $679,000 assessment to pay Costello, Lomasney, de Napoli, Inc., but only $5,000 and $19,600 for the Massachusetts and New Hampshire Civil Defense Agencies, respectively. The chairman determined that the balance of the requested assessments were attributable to personnel expenses related to overseeing the formulation of the evacuation plan, and that such costs could only be assessed after public comment, pursuant to RSA 107-B:2 (Supp.1981).
Regarding Representatives Hollingworth and Pevear's challenge to the $679,000 requested assessment, the chairman determined that his role in approving assessments under RSA 107-B:1 I (Supp.1981) was simply as, what he described as, a "launderer of the money," and that he had no authority under RSA 107-B:1 I (Supp.1981) to examine the amount of the CDA's request. On February 18, 1982, chairman Love denied the motions for a rehearing filed by Representatives Hollingworth and Pevear and by the CDA.
Representatives Hollingworth and Pevear appealed to this court, contending that the PUC chairman misinterpreted the scope of his authority under RSA chapter 107-B (Supp.1981) when he approved assessments for the funding of an emergency nuclear evacuation plan without permitting the statutorily mandated public comment on and participation in the formulation of that plan. The CDA's appeal alleges that the chairman erred as a matter of law in ruling that its personnel expenses were not a "cost of preparing the plan" within the meaning of RSA 107-B:1 I (Supp.1981).
Both of these cases were brought before this court pursuant to RSA 541:6. RSA chapter 541 provides for appeals in certain cases "[w]hen so authorized by law." RSA 541:2; see N.E. Household Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Public Util. Comm'n, 117 N.H. 1038, 1040, 381 A.2d 745, 747 (1977); Connell's New & Used Cars, Inc. v. State, 117 N.H. 531, 532, 375 A.2d 257, 257 (1977). Nothing in RSA chapter 107-B (Supp.1981), however, specifically authorizes an appeal from the PUC chairman's assessment of costs.
Representatives Hollingworth and Pevear and the CDA predicate their appeals on RSA 365:21, but that statute governs appeals from decisions of the full commission, not those of the commission's chairman alone. If this assessment had been made by the PUC as a body pursuant to RSA chapter 363-A, judicial review could be sought by appeal. See Appeal of the Association of New Hampshire Utilities, 122 N.H. 1038, ---, 451 A.2d 164, 166 (1982).
Our practice in the past, however, has been to consider an improper chapter 541 petition as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and we will follow this practice in these cases. Connell's New & Used Cars, Inc. v. State, 117 N.H. at 532, 375 A.2d at 258. Therefore, our standard of review is whether the PUC chairman acted illegally in respect to jurisdiction, authority, or observance of law, or whether he abused his discretion or acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or capriciously. State v. Brackett, 122 N.H. 716, ---, 449 A.2d 1210, 1212 (1982); Wilson v. State Personnel Comm'n, 118 N.H. 424, 426, 387 A.2d 1160, 1161 (1978).
The argument advanced by Representatives Hollingworth and Pevear before the PUC and on review by this court is that the power of the chairman to "assess" the cost of preparing a nuclear evacuation plan within...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Appeal of Lorden
... ... Jordan, 101 N.H. 65, 67, 133 A.2d 485, 487 (1957) (citation omitted); accord Appeal of Hollingworth, 122 ... N.H. 1028, 1032, 453 A.2d 1288, 1290-91 (1982); Connell's New & Used Cars, Inc. v. State, 117 N.H. 531, 532, 375 A.2d 257, 257-58 (1977); see also Cumberland Farms v. Pierce, 104 N.H. 489, 502, 190 A.2d 403, 413 (1963) (error of law open to correction on writ of certiorari); In re ... ...
-
Petition of Milan School Dist.
...of law, or whether it abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or capriciously. See Appeal of Hollingworth, 122 N.H. 1028, ---, 453 A.2d 1288, 1290 (1982). This standard of review necessarily precludes the consideration of additional evidence which the school district had a......
-
Hobson v. Hilltop Place Community Ass'n
... ... Basso, 393 So.2d 637, 640 (Fla.App.1981) ... Having rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, we further hold the appeal ... ...
-
Runde v. City of Concord
...acted illegally, has abused its discretion, or has acted arbitrarily, unreasonably or capriciously. Appeal of Hollingworth, 122 N.H. 1028, 1032, 453 A.2d 1288, 1290-291 (1982). When, as here, the original certiorari proceeding is in the superior court, the scope of inquiry on appeal to this......