CLEARVIEW ELECTRIC, INC. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY, SC 21121

Judicial District of New Britain

Administrative Appeal; General Statutes § 16-41 (c); Whether Denial of Motion to Withdraw License Is "Contested [C]ase" Under General Statutes § 4-166 (4). In 2021, the defendant, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), issued to the plaintiff electric supplier a notice of violation, assessment of a $1 million civil penalty, and three year license suspension. PURA and the plaintiff resolved the matter in a November, 2021 settlement agreement, which provided that the plaintiff would withdraw from the energy market for six years and pay $500,000 to settle "all allegations and claims currently known and knowable." Meanwhile, PURA had opened a "cost allocation docket" in 2014 that was resolved by way of a July 26, 2023 final decision concluding that certain costs could be recovered from "all third-party electric suppliers who currently have a license." Because the plaintiff had not yet withdrawn its license as of July 26, 2023, PURA issued a $178,832.11 assessment. Two days later, on July 28, the plaintiff filed a motion withdraw its license, and PURA responded that the assessment must be paid beforehand. On August 17, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking a declaratory ruling and arguing that, when PURA had approved the November, 2021 settlement agreement, the proceedings leading to the July, 2023 assessment were "known or knowable" such that the plaintiff had no outstanding obligations. PURA denied the motion, and the plaintiff filed the underlying administrative appeal in the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (a) of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), challenging the July, 2023 assessment and asserting that PURA "did not address" the plaintiff's request for a declaratory ruling. PURA moved for dismissal on the ground that it "did not issue a declaratory ruling" and because the denial of the plaintiff's motion to withdraw was not appealable under the UAPA. Specifically, PURA argued that the order denying the motion to withdraw did not amount to a final decision in a "contested case," as defined by General Statutes § 4-166 (4), given that no hearing was held or required. The plaintiff contended that the order that it pay the assessment before withdrawing its license amounted to a "licensing" proceeding and, therefore, was "by definition" a contested case under § 4-166 (4). The trial court agreed with PURA's argument that the denial of the plaintiff's motion to withdraw its license was not a contested case and granted its motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, and the Supreme Court transferred this appeal to itself pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c). The plaintiff argues that PURA was required to hold a hearing pursuant to General Statutes § 16-41 (c), governing PURA's authority to the impose "civil penalties," and maintains that the trial court erred in concluding that the denial of its motion to withdraw was not a contested case and not appealable. The plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred because PURA purportedly issued a declaratory ruling "even though [PURA] did not call it such." PURA argues that the plaintiff is not aggrieved by the decision to deny its motion to withdraw its license and that the plaintiff waived its appellate claim that PURA issued a declaratory ruling, as the plaintiff had argued before the trial court that PURA did not issue a ruling. If there was a declaratory ruling, then PURA argues that the plaintiff's claim fails nonetheless because "the plaintiff's purported petition for a declaratory ruling did not meet the requirements of General Statutes § 4-176 (a)."