In re Petition of Apple Hill Solar LLC

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Public Utility Commission’s denial of a certificate of public good for a proposed 2.0-megawatt solar facility in Bennington. The Court rejected challenges concerning administrative procedure, evidentiary support, post-hoc rationalizations, the need for an additional hearing, and the Commission’s assessment of the project’s benefits and adverse impacts under 30 V.S.A. § 248.

Holdings

1. The Commission was not required to issue a proposal for decision because a majority of the commissioners who rendered the decision reasonably could be inferred to have reviewed the record.
2. The Commission did not violate 3 V.S.A. § 809(g) by considering the project's regional visibility, the standard-offer program's capacity, or the likelihood that similar benefits could be obtained from other solar projects.
3. The Commission did not rely on post-hoc rationalizations and was not required to conduct another evidentiary hearing before denying the certificate on remand.
4. The Commission acted within its discretion in concluding that the project's societal benefits were not unique and did not outweigh its violation of the clear, written community standard concerning prominent hillside visibility.
5. The constitutional challenges were not adequately preserved, and they would fail because the petitioner sought to invalidate the statutory provisions facially even though the Commission lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate a facial constitutional challenge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commission violated 3 V.S.A. § 811 by failing to issue a proposal for decision before denying the certificate of public good.
2. Whether the Commission violated 3 V.S.A. § 809 by relying on evidence or matters outside the record without proper notice.
3. Whether the Commission relied on post-hoc rationalizations or was required to conduct an additional evidentiary hearing on remand.
4. Whether the Commission's findings and conclusion that the project's societal benefits did not outweigh its adverse impacts were arbitrary, capricious, unsupported, or contrary to the Supreme Court's remand instructions.
5. Whether the Commission's application of 30 V.S.A. § 248(b)(1) and (5) violated due process or equal protection.

Disposition

affirmed