Clipper v. Sprenger, 136 September Term, 2005.

Citation399 Md. 539,924 A.2d 1160
Decision Date08 June 2007
Docket NumberNo. 136 September Term, 2005.,136 September Term, 2005.
PartiesCLIPPER WINDPOWER, INC., et al. v. Paul C. SPRENGER, et al.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Miles H. Mitchell, Deputy Gen. Counsel (Susan Stevens Miller, Gen. Counsel, Baltimore, MD), on brief; Jeffrey A. Lamken (David A. Super of Baker Botts, L.L.P., Washington, DC), on brief, for Petitioners.

John J. Coyle, Jr. (Hidey, Coyle & Monteleone, Cumberland, MD), on brief, for Respondents.

Argued Before BELL, C.J., RAKER,

*WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA and GREENE, JJ.

BELL, Chief Judge.

This case arises out of a dispute over the construction of a wind turbine facility in Garrett County, Maryland. On March 26, 2003, the Public Service Commission (the "Commission"), one of the petitioners, entered a final order (Order No. 78354) granting Clipper Windpower, Inc. ("Clipper"), the other petitioner (collectively "the petitioners"), a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN") for the construction of a 101 megawatt ("MW") wind turbine facility. On April 24, 2003, by letter signed by Eric Tribbey, on behalf of, and as its representative, Friends of Backbone Mountain ("Friends") requested a rehearing.1 That request was denied (Order No. 78617). Thereafter, Tribbey, one of the respondents, acting on his own behalf, filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for judicial review2 of both orders (Case No. 24-C-036366). This action for judicial review was consolidated with the judicial review action initiated by Paul C. Sprenger, Russell W. Bounds, and Troy Gnegy, the other respondents (collectively "the respondents"), who also filed petitions for judicial review (Case No. 24-C-036325).

Clipper and the Commission each filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the respondents' petitions for judicial review were untimely.3 The Circuit Court agreed and, therefore, dismissed the actions for judicial review. The respondents noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, which, in an unreported opinion, reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court.

We granted the petitions for writ of certiorari filed by both Clipper and the Commission, Clipper Windpower v. Sprenger, 391 Md. 577, 894 A.2d 545 (2006), to address:

"Whether PUC § 3-114(c) limits the right to request rehearing solely to `a party in interest' that has properly intervened as such in the Commission's proceedings, and is thus distinguishable from PUC § 3-202(a) which provides a right to judicial review to `a party or person in interest ... dissatisfied by a final decision or order of the Commission ...'?"[4]

While, to be sure, the right to judicial review of orders and decisions of the Commission is available to "a party or person in interest ... dissatisfied by a final decision or order of the Commission ...," PUC § 3-202(a),5 we conclude that only a "party in interest" may seek rehearing under PUC § 3-114. To be a "party in interest," if the requestor was not a party, the requestor must have intervened properly, pursuant to PUC § 3-106,6 thus becoming a "party" to the proceeding.

I.

On August 26, 2002, Clipper filed an application with the Commission seeking authorization to build a wind turbine facility for the purpose of generating electricity. As required, Clipper notified the public, by publishing a notice in both The Republican and The Cumberland Times-News, generally circulated newspapers in Garrett County, on the successive weeks of September 26, 2002, September 30, 2002, October 3, 2002, and October 6, 2002, of its application to build the facility, and the date, time, and location of a scheduled pre-hearing conference.

The wind turbine facility was to be composed of up to 67 individual turbines. Each turbine would consist of a free-standing tower approximately 262 feet in height. A rotor, having a diameter not in excess of 262 feet (80m) (39m blades), would be attached to the tower. The maximum combined height would be approximately "394 ft (120 m) with one blade in the vertical position." Clipper's executive summary of its proposal for the facility implied that some, but not all, of the turbines would be of that size and stated that all 67 turbines may not need to be built depending upon "factors ... not identified prior to [the] start of construction." In addition to the tower and the blade, each turbine would consist of a foundation anchoring it to the ground and a transformer that would collect the power from the turbines and transfer it to a substation through an "underground electrical collection system." All-weather gravel service roads would be built from existing hardtop roads and the cables associated with the electrical collection system were to be buried alongside such service roads. The total project area would cover approximately 10.8 miles and would be constructed on Backbone Mountain extending from "Wild Turkey Rock at an elevation of 3,228 ft (984 m) above sea level southwestward to Allegheny Heights at 3,200 ft (975 m)." Although three other sites were surveyed, Allegheny Heights was selected "because of wind resource potential and favorable site characteristics (primarily contiguous, well-exposed areas and proximity to three transmission lines)."7

An adjudicatory hearing regarding Clipper's proposal, at which attendance was high, "standing room only," was held. Clipper, the Department of Natural Resources's Power Plant Research Program, the staff of the Commission, and the Office of People's Counsel were the named parties to the proceeding. Pursuant to PUC § 3-106, four individual members of the public intervened and were granted party status.8 Among those in attendance were respondents Eric Tribbey and Russell Bounds, who also testified. Although both Tribbey and Bounds submitted citizen comment letters following the conclusion of the hearing, neither they, nor Friends, sought to intervene.

The hearing examiner issued a proposed order that contained and recommended settlement conditions to which all of the parties had agreed, which the Commission subsequently adopted. It issued a final order (Order No. 78354) approving Clipper's plan.

Tribbey, then, writing on behalf of Friends, submitted a letter to the Commission requesting a rehearing.9 The Commission, by Order No. 78617, denied the request, explaining:

"This matter comes before the Public Service Commission (`Commission') as a result of a series of filings made by entities that did not appear as parties in the above-captioned proceeding. On April 24, 2003, the Friends of Backbone Mountain (`Friends') filed a pro se formal request for rehearing in this case. On April 25, 2003, Citizens for Responsible Wind Power (`Citizens') also filed a pro se formal request for rehearing in this case. A third pro se formal request for rehearing in this matter was filed on April 28, 2003, by The Garrett County Historical Society (`Garrett Historical') .... Friends made an additional filing, by Counsel, on June 27, 2003. This June 27th filing includes two documents: (1) an Application to Intervene, and (2) a Supplement to Request for Rehearing and Application to Reopen for Further Evidence .... On August 5, 2003, Counsel for Paul C. Sprenger filed an Application to Intervene and a Motion for Reconsideration and for Modification of the Order of the Public Service Commission (`Sprenger Motion'). This August 5th filing includes four exhibits (`Sprenger Exhibits A, B, C, and D'). None of the actual parties to the case have raised any objection to the Commission's Order No. 78354, issued on March 26, 2003.

"The Commission denies all four requests. Public Utility Companies (`PUC') Article § 3-114(c)(1) restricts the right to apply for rehearing to parties: `A party in interest may apply to the Commission for rehearing within 30 days after service of a final order on the party.' [Emphasis added.] Since none of the four entities requesting rehearing were parties to the proceeding, none qualify to request rehearing. Additionally, the filing made on behalf of Friends on June 27, 2003, is not a filing provided for either under PUC § 3-114 or Code of Maryland Regulations (`COMAR') § 20.07.02.08,10 both of which contemplate a single, comprehensive rehearing application by a party. Friends' June 27th filing is also well beyond the thirty-day period during which parties may request rehearing. Sprenger's filings are still further beyond the thirty-day period during which parties may request rehearing.

"Clipper complied with all of the procedural elements of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (`CPCN') process, including the provisions of COMAR § 20.79.01.03, and also complied with the Hearing Examiner's direction to advertise the pre-hearing conference and the public hearings in local Garrett County newspapers. The four entities requesting rehearing had sufficient notice and opportunity to intervene as parties; since they did not, they do not have standing to request rehearing....

"... as already stated, Clipper properly advertised the pre-hearing conference and the public hearings in local Garrett County newspapers, thus providing sufficient notice to enable prompt and timely intervention. This is not a question of whether Friends could have intervened `sooner in the process,' but rather an issue of whether Friends attempted to intervene during the process at all. The Commission finds that the attempted intervention is outside the process, and cannot be granted since the proceeding closed prior to the attempted intervention."

Order No. 78617 (internal footnotes omitted). Thus, the Commission concluded that Friends was not a "party in interest" under PUC § 3-114 because it had not properly intervened under PUC § 3-106. The Commission also determined that it already had fully considered the issues presented for rehearing in the original proceedings and it was not necessary to readdress them or to address them further.11

Thereafter, as we have seen, Tribbey, on his own behalf, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Mcglone v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • November 13, 2008
    ... ... City of Annapolis, 402 Md. 587, 613-14, 937 A.2d 242, 258 (2007); Magnetti v. Univ. of Md., 402 Md. 548, 565, 937 A.2d 219, 229 (2007); Clipper Windpower, Inc. v. Sprenger, 399 Md. 539, 554, 924 A.2d 1160, 1168 (2007)." ...          Id. at 426, 952 A.2d at 270 ... ...
  • Halici v. Gaithersburg
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • May 30, 2008
    ... ...         Our primary goal in construing a statute is to ascertain the legislature's intent. Clipper Windpower, Inc. v. Sprenger, 399 Md. 539, 553, 924 A.2d 1160 (2007). "Ordinary, popular understanding of the English language dictates ... ...
  • Schreyer v. Chaplain
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • October 6, 2010
  • Himes v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 29, 2008
    ... ...         Our primary goal in construing a statute is to ascertain the legislature's intent. Clipper Windpower v. Sprenger, 399 Md. 539, 553, 924 A.2d 1160 (2007). "If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we need not look beyond the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT