Windham Solar, LLC v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

Citations

• 196 Conn. App. 287

Syllabus

The plaintiff, W Co., sought to sell to the defendant E Co. the energy and capacity from twenty-six solar electric generating facilities. E Co. agreed to purchase the energy, but not the capacity, and rejected W Co.'s offer to sell the energy at a rate equal to the anticipated avoided costs over the life of the proposed thirty year contract. W Co. then filed a petition with the defendant Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, pursuant to statute (§ 16-243a), seeking an order to compel E Co. to enter into the contract to purchase the energy and the capacity in accordance with W Co.'s proposed pricing. W Co. claimed that E Co. had failed to negotiate in good faith to arrive at a contract that fairly reflected the requirements of § 16-243a and the anticipated avoided costs over the life of the con- tract. The authority denied W Co.'s petition, concluding that E Co. did not need the capacity offered by W Co. and that the avoided cost of the proffered capacity was zero. The authority further determined that W Co.'s petition sought a declaratory judgment and held that it would open a separate proceeding to consider whether its regulations required modification or amendment. After W Co. appealed to the trial court, that court granted an unopposed request from the authority to remand the matter to the authority to consider the effect of recent rulings by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the authority's denial of W Co.'s petition. The court retained jurisdiction over W Co.'s appeal. The authority thereafter reversed its initial decision denying W Co.'s petition, concluding that W Co.'s claims should be addressed through the authority's rule-making proceeding. The authority then filed a motion to dismiss W Co.'s appeal on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because W Co. was not aggrieved by the authority's two decisions and that the appeal had become moot as a result of the authority's reversal of its initial decision. The court granted th