Pele Defense Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture
881 P.2d 1210, 77 Haw. 64, 1994 Haw. LEXIS 67 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency hearing that is discretionary by statute qualifies as a 'contested case' for purposes of judicial review if constitutional due process requires a hearing. A hearing is required by due process when an agency's decision to grant a permit implicates the applicant's property rights and adversely affects the constitutionally protected property interests of opposing parties.
Facts:
- Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) applied to the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) for permits to construct a geothermal well field and power plant.
- The governing statute gave the DOH discretionary authority to hold public hearings on such permit applications but did not mandate them.
- The DOH held two 'public informational hearings' concerning PGV's application.
- During these hearings, members of the Pele Defense Fund (PDF) and other local residents and landowners testified against the project and requested formal 'contested case hearings'.
- The DOH determined it was not legally required to grant a contested case hearing and denied the requests from PDF and the other individuals.
- Subsequently, the DOH granted the construction permits to PGV.
Procedural Posture:
- Pele Defense Fund and other parties (Appellees) filed an appeal of the Department of Health's decision in the third circuit court of Hawaii.
- Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV), the permit recipient, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because a statutory 'contested case' had not occurred.
- The circuit court denied PGV's motion to dismiss.
- PGV then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the circuit court also denied.
- The circuit court granted PGV's motion for an interlocutory appeal, allowing PGV to immediately appeal the jurisdictional question to the Supreme Court of Hawai'i before the case proceeded further.
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 a circuit court have subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a statutorily discretionary agency hearing when constitutional due process requires such a hearing to protect the property interests of parties opposing the agency's action?
Opinions:
Majority - Klein, J.
Yes. A circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction because even though the hearing was discretionary by statute, it became a 'contested case' required by law due to constitutional due process protections. The court reasoned that judicial review under Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(a) is available only for 'contested cases,' which are defined as hearings 'required by law.' While the applicable statute made the hearing optional for the DOH, constitutional due process can independently make a hearing 'required.' This constitutional requirement is triggered when an agency action, such as granting a permit, implicates an applicant's property rights (PGV's use of its land) and simultaneously adversely affects the constitutionally protected rights of other interested persons (e.g., adjacent landowners fearing harm to their property and health). Therefore, the DOH proceeding was a contested case, vesting the circuit court with jurisdiction to hear the appeal for those parties who could demonstrate standing by showing they participated in the agency process and suffered an 'injury in fact'.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the availability of judicial review for administrative agency actions in Hawaii, particularly in environmental law. By establishing that constitutional due process can convert a statutorily discretionary hearing into a mandatory 'contested case,' the court created a vital pathway for citizens to challenge agency decisions that affect their property interests. This precedent lowers the jurisdictional barrier for appeals, ensuring that agencies cannot shield their decisions from judicial oversight simply because a statute gives them discretion over the hearing process. The ruling empowers individuals and groups whose rights are implicated by development projects to have their day in court, reinforcing the principle that procedural rights can be constitutionally compelled to protect substantive property interests.
