Office of Consumer Counsel v. Department of Public Utility Control

• Decision Date: 01 August 1995
• Docket Number: No. 15002,15002
• Citation: 662 A.2d 1251,234 Conn. 624
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL et al.

Page 1251

662 A.2d 1251

234 Conn. 624

OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL et al.

No. 15002.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 25, 1995.

Decided Aug. 1, 1995.

Peter G. Boucher, with whom were John B. Farley and Daniel P. Scapellati, for appellant (plaintiff City of Hartford).

Robert P. Knickerbocker, Jr., with whom were Phyllis E. Lemell and Robert P. Wax, for appellee (defendant Connecticut Light and Power Co.).

Bruce C. Johnson, with whom, on the brief, was John F. Merchant, for appellee (named plaintiff).

William B. Heinrich, for appellee (defendant Connecticut Conference of Municipalities).

Jeanne M. Sole and Donald S. Strait filed a brief for the Conservation Law Foundation as amicus curiae.

Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, BORDEN, BERDON and KATZ, JJ.

KATZ, Associate Justice.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, the city of Hartford, has standing to appeal the rate-making decision of the defendant, the department of public utility control (DPUC), which approved a multiyear electric utility rate increase for the defendant, Connecticut Light and Power Company (CL & P). After the DPUC issued its rate-making decision, Hartford and the other plaintiff, the office of consumer counsel (OCC), appealed from that decision to the Superior Court, claiming that the DPUC lacked authority to grant a multiyear rate increase. CL & P then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, contending that Hartford and the OCC were not "aggrieved" by the final decision and, therefore, that they lacked standing to appeal. The trial court, Maloney, J., determined that the OCC, but not Hartford, was "aggrieved" by the decision of the DPUC. Accordingly, the court rendered judgment granting CL & P's motion to dismiss the appeal as to Hartford only. Hartford appealed from the judgment of dismissal to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199c. ¹ We affirm the judgment of the trial court, although for a reason different than that upon which the trial court relied. ²

The following facts are relevant to this appeal. By application received by the DPUC on December 11, 1992, CL & P requested, pursuant to General Statutes § 16-19, ³ approval to increase its rates and revenues. In its application, CL & P made two separate proposals: (1) a three year rate plan designed to increase its revenues by $127 million or 6.2 percent for rates effective March 1, 1993, by $111 million or 5.2 percent for rates effective January 1 1994, and by $120 million or 5.1 percent for rates effective January 1, 1995; and (2) a one year plan designed to increase its revenues by $250 million or 12.5 percent for rates effective May 1, 1993. ⁴

The rate application was assigned to a panel of three commissioners of the public utilities control authority (PUCA) pursuant to General Statutes § 16-2(c). ⁵ Each of the following was recognized to be a party to the proceeding: ⁶ (1) CL & P; (2) the OCC; (3) the prosecutorial division of the DPUC; (4) the state of Connecticut department of economic development; and (5) the state of Connecticut office of policy and management. Each of the following was granted intervenor status: ⁷ (1) Hartford; ⁸ (2) Dan Carlinsky; (3) the Connecticut Business and Industry Association; (4) the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM); (5) the Connecticut Cogeneration Coalition; (6) the Connecticut Industrial Energy Consumers; (7) the Conservation Law Foundation; (8) the Enfield town council; (9) the Heritage Village Civic Association; (10) the Heritage Village Master Association; (11) the Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials; (12) the state of Connecticut office of the attorney general; (13) the Taylor and Fenn Company; (14) the town of New Milford; (15) the town of Southbury; and (16) the Western Connecticut Industrial Council.

After the DPUC and CL & P had discussed preliminary matters, Hartford filed a "Motion to Dismiss the Multi-Year Rate Plan" dated February 3, 1993. The DPUC requested and received written comments and heard oral argument on the motion, and thereafter, on February 18, 1993, the PUCA denied that motion. ⁹ On February 16, 1993, CL & P filed supplemental information with the DPUC proposing a base rate increase of $152 million or 7.3 percent in May 1993, $141 million or 6.3 percent on May 1, 1994, and $70 million or 3.2 percent on May 1, 1995. Thereafter, on February 19, 1993, Hartford filed motions requesting the PUCA to dismiss CL & P's amendment of February 16, 1993, and to order CL & P to comply with "Standard Filing Requirements with Regard to CL & P's Rate Increase Proposals for the Years 1994 and 1995." After requesting and receiving written comments, the PUCA denied these motions on March 10, 1993. On March 12, 1993, CL & P filed revised data indicating a proposed one year increase of $279 million or 13.9 percent.

Between February 11, 1993, and April 23, 1993, the DPUC held a public hearing on CL & P's application. See General Statutes § 16-19. The DPUC conducted the proceedings at its offices, but received comments from members of the public at various locations throughout the state. At the regional locations, a total of 370 customers were in attendance, eighty-five of whom spoke on the record. These customers generally disagreed with the proposed increases and expressed concern about the impact that such increases would have on the already ailing state economy. Others commented on the overall rate structure (i.e., which rate classes should bear more or less of the proposed burden) and the availability of special programs. For example, Hartford emphasized the economic plight of its citizens, and recommended the use of low income discounts, special conservation projects for depressed cities, and energy efficiency for public and low income housing. ¹⁰

On April 29, 1993, after negotiations among Hartford and others, there was filed with the DPUC a "Partial Settlement Agreement of City of Hartford, Office of Consumer Counsel, Office of Attorney General, Prosecutorial and The Connecticut Light and Power Company" (partial settlement). The partial settlement provided for some low income discounts and increased funding for energy conservation programs, as requested by Hartford, in return for Hartford's agreement not to challenge the authority of the DPUC to consider multiyear rate increases. ¹¹ The partial settlement stipulated, however, that all of the signatories' legal claims would be revived if the DPUC rejected any of its provisions.

The hearing was closed by "Notice of Close of Hearing" on May 3, 1993. On May 4, 1993, the DPUC notified all parties and intervenors that, pursuant to General Statutes § 16-19(a), ¹² it had extended by thirty days the time by which it would issue a final decision. On June 1, 1993, the DPUC issued a draft decision and invited all parties and intervenors to file written exceptions and present oral arguments. The DPUC issued its final decision on June 16, 1993.

In its decision, the DPUC approved, with modification, CL & P's proposal for a three year rate increase. It approved increases of approximately $46 million for 1993, approximately $47 million for 1994, and approximately $48 million for 1995, or approximately 2 percent for each year. ¹³ In doing so, it stated, inter alia, that CL & P "proposed the three-year plan to provide customers with a predictable, gradually increasing, rate path over the next three years that would assist both business and residential customers in planning and budgeting for their needs. The Plan shifts rate increases from the near term, when the recession is creating a hardship on customers, to a period when economic recovery can make paying higher rates somewhat easier." Furthermore, it expressly rejected the partial settlement and, accordingly, recognized Hartford's contractual right to pursue its "jurisdictional challenge to the authority of the [DPUC] to act on CL & P's multi-year rate plan."

On July 29, 1993, Hartford and the OCC appealed from the decision of the DPUC to the Superior Court ¹⁴ pursuant to General Statutes §§ 16-35 and 4-183, ¹⁵ claiming that the DPUC lacked subject matter jurisdiction to approve a rate-change for more than one year. ¹⁶ Thereafter, CL & P moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis that Hartford and the OCC had failed to establish that they were "aggrieved" by the final decision of the DPUC as required by §§ 16-35 and 4-183(a).

On May 9, 1994, the trial court granted the motion as to Hartford and denied it as to the OCC. In doing so, the court applied the two-part aggrievement standard set forth in Light Rigging Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 219 Conn. 168, 173, 592 A.2d 386 (1991), requiring an appellant to show both "a specific personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision" and "that the specific personal and legal interest has been specially and injuriously affected by the decision." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The court determined that the OCC had met the first part of the test on the basis of General Statutes § 16-2a(a), and concluded that the second part was satisfied due to the $47 million and $48 million increases that the DPUC had approved for 1994 and 1995, respectively. The court granted the motion to dismiss as to Hartford, however, because that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate "a legal interest in the subject matter of the [DPUC's] decision that is different from that of other members of the public when they purchase electric service." Hartford appealed from the judgment of dismissal. ¹⁷ We affirm.

"Pleading and proof of aggrievement are prerequisites to a trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of an administrative appeal. Bakelaar v. West Haven, 193 Conn. 59, 65, 475 A.2d 283 (1984). It is [therefore] fundamental that, in order to have standing to bring an...