VISTRA CORP. et al. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY, SC 21120

Judicial District of New Britain

Administrative Appeal; General Statutes § 16-244c; General Statutes § 4-166; Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards; Whether Proceeding Was "Contested [C]ase"; Whether Plaintiffs Exhausted Administrative Remedies Prior to Seeking Declaratory Judgment Under General Statutes § 4-175. The plaintiff electric suppliers are required to meet renewable energy portfolio standards (RPS), and the defendant, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), is required under General Statutes § 16-244c (h) (1) to annually "conduct an uncontested proceeding" to determine compliance. In 2022, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an investigation into "billing, marketing and licensing." In exchange for the "full and final settlement of . . . all actual and/or potential claims, known or knowable," the plaintiffs paid certain amounts, relinquished their licenses, and withdrew from the energy market. The agreement also provided that the plaintiffs would "pay the full amount owed" if PURA determined as part of its annual 2022 RPS compliance review that "the amounts paid . . . as part of this [s]ettlement [a]greement . . . did not meet their full obligations." The plaintiffs made their 2021 and 2022 RPS compliance filings, as the agreement directed, and PURA returned their RPS security deposits. In 2023, PURA conducted its 2022 RPS annual review and directed all electric suppliers, including the plaintiffs, to submit a compliance report. The plaintiffs relied on their settlement filings, and PURA asked them to refile because "the amount paid under the settlement agreement was insufficient," as it was based on an estimated "load" and the actual amount was higher. Instead of refiling, the plaintiffs petitioned PURA for "an expedited declaratory ruling to confirm that [they] met their 2022 [RPS] obligations as negotiated in [the] settlement agreement." PURA did not issue a ruling and, thereafter, issued a final decision finding that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their 2022 RPS obligations and ordering them to pay over $1 million. In response, the plaintiffs filed a two count complaint in the Superior Court. In the first count, they brought an administrative appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), claiming that PURA violated the plain language of the agreement. In the second count, they seek a declaratory judgment pursuant to General Statutes § 4-175 that they satisfied their 2022 RPS obligations. PURA moved for dismissal, claiming that an RPS review is not a "contested case" under General Statutes § 4-166 (4) and, therefore, not an appealable "final decision" under § 4-166 (5). PURA also claimed that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to the declaratory judgment count, citing pending administrative proceedings regarding their RPS compliance. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the 2022 RPS decision was an not a contested case and that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court. The Supreme Court transferred this appeal to itself pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c), and the plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred because § 4-175 (a) (2) provides for a declaratory judgment action when an agency "decides not to issue a declaratory ruling," which the plaintiffs assert occurred here. Moreover, they claim that the "settlement agreement, and any interpretation of its language, requires adjudication in a contested case" such that their administrative appeal was improperly dismissed. PURA and the Office of Consumer Counsel, which is a party to the settlement agreement, argue that the dismissal was proper.