Citizens Against Overhead Power Line Construction v. Connecticut Siting Council
139 Conn.App. 565, 57 A.3d 765, 2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 590 (2012)
Rule of Law:
When a petition for reconsideration of an administrative agency's decision is granted, the agency's subsequent decision on reconsideration becomes the sole final, appealable order. An appeal filed after the original decision but before the decision on reconsideration is premature and fails to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court.
Facts:
- The Connecticut Light & Power Company (power company) applied to the Connecticut Siting Council (siting council) for certificates to construct a large-scale electric transmission project.
- The project consisted of two components: the Greater Springfield Reliability Project (Springfield project) and the Manchester to Meekville Junction Circuit Separation Project (Manchester project).
- Citizens Against Overhead Power Line Construction (association), an unincorporated group including Richard M. Legere, consists of property owners in towns affected by the Springfield project.
- On March 16, 2010, the siting council issued a decision granting the application for the Springfield project but denying without prejudice the application for the Manchester project.
- On April 7, 2010, the power company petitioned the siting council to reconsider the denial of the Manchester project portion of its application.
- The siting council granted the petition for reconsideration.
- On July 20, 2010, following additional proceedings, the siting council issued a new decision on reconsideration, granting the power company's application for the Manchester project.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 7, 2010, Citizens Against Overhead Power Line Construction and Richard M. Legere (plaintiffs) filed an appeal in the Connecticut Superior Court against the Connecticut Siting Council's decision of March 16, 2010.
- The Connecticut Light & Power Company (defendant) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the appeal was not from a final decision and, alternatively, that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
- The Superior Court (trial court) denied the motion to dismiss on the final decision issue but scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the issue of standing (aggrievement).
- On March 24, 2011, after the hearing, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiffs were not aggrieved and therefore lacked standing.
- The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment of dismissal to the Appellate Court of Connecticut.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an appeal filed after an administrative agency's initial decision, but before the agency rules on a pending petition for reconsideration of that decision, constitute an appeal from a 'final decision' sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court?
Opinions:
Majority - Espinosa, J.
No. An appeal filed prior to an agency's ruling on a granted petition for reconsideration is not taken from a final decision. Under Connecticut General Statutes § 4-181a(a)(4), an agency decision made after reconsideration becomes 'the final decision in the contested case in lieu of the original final decision' for all appeal purposes. The court reasoned that this statutory language is plain and unambiguous, meaning the July 20, 2010 decision replaced the March 16, 2010 decision as the only final, appealable order. This interpretation is reinforced by § 4-183(c), which dictates that the appeal clock starts from the latest applicable event, which in this case was the issuance of the decision on reconsideration. This statutory scheme prevents piecemeal appeals and ensures all administrative remedies are exhausted before judicial review. Because the plaintiffs appealed the March 16 decision and never appealed the final July 20 decision, the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Dissenting - Bishop, J.
Yes. The plaintiffs' appeal from the March 16, 2010 decision was timely and taken from a final decision. The dissent argues the majority misinterprets the statutory scheme, particularly the word 'may' in § 4-183(a), which implies that the timing of an appeal is permissive, not mandatory. The 2006 amendments were intended to extend the time to appeal, allowing a party to wait for a reconsideration decision, not to compel them to do so. It is illogical to require the plaintiffs, who were only interested in the Springfield project, to delay their appeal pending the outcome of reconsideration on the unrelated Manchester project. The dissent would find the appeal timely and then reach the merits of the standing issue, concluding that plaintiff Legere was both statutorily and classically aggrieved and should have been allowed to proceed with his case.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the rule of finality in Connecticut administrative law, establishing a bright-line rule that a pending petition for reconsideration renders an initial agency decision non-final for purposes of appeal. The ruling prioritizes judicial economy and agency autonomy by preventing fragmented litigation and ensuring that an agency has fully completed its process before judicial intervention. For legal practitioners, this case serves as a critical warning to meticulously track post-decision motions and identify the true final order—the one issued after reconsideration—to avoid a fatal jurisdictional defect in their appeal. The decision effectively requires all parties to a multi-issue proceeding to await the final resolution of all parts of the case, even those in which they have no direct interest.
