Town of Middlebury v. Department of Environmental Protection
283 Conn. 156, 927 A.2d 793, 37 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20169 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an administrative agency decision to be appealable as a "contested case" under the pre-amendment Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, the hearing must be required by a state statute, not by a federal statute or an agency regulation. A legislative amendment that creates a new right of appeal is a substantive change in the law and applies prospectively, not retroactively.
Facts:
- In December 1998, Towantic Energy, LLC (Towantic) applied to the state department of environmental protection (department) for seven stationary source air permits.
- The permits were for the purpose of constructing and operating a gas turbine power plant in Oxford, Connecticut.
- The proposed plant was to be located approximately 500 feet from the Oxford-Middlebury town border.
- The town of Middlebury, along with several preservation groups and individuals (plaintiffs), objected to the application due to environmental concerns.
- The department held a public hearing on Towantic's application.
- This hearing was required by a federal statute (the Clean Air Act) and an accompanying state regulation, but was not independently required by any Connecticut state statute.
- On June 26, 2003, the department granted Towantic’s application and issued the air permits.
Procedural Posture:
- The town of Middlebury, Preservation Middlebury, and other plaintiffs intervened in the department's administrative review of Towantic's permit application.
- After the department granted the permits, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Connecticut Superior Court (trial court).
- The department and Towantic filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the decision was not a 'final decision' in a 'contested case.'
- On July 28, 2004, the trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal.
- The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Appellate Court.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court transferred the appeal to itself for review.
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 administrative agency's decision constitute a 'final decision' in a 'contested case' appealable to the Superior Court under General Statutes § 4-166 when the underlying hearing was required by federal statute and state regulation, rather than by a Connecticut state statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Vertefeuille, J.
No. An administrative agency's decision does not constitute a 'final decision' in a 'contested case' when the hearing was required by federal statute or state regulation, rather than by a state statute. The court's jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an agency decision under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA) requires a 'contested case,' which is defined as a proceeding where a hearing is 'required by statute.' The court interpreted 'statute' to mean only a state statute, reasoning that it is the province of the state legislature, not Congress or an administrative agency, to make the public policy determination about which agency decisions are subject to judicial review in state courts. Citing 'Morel v. Commissioner of Public Health', the court rejected the argument that a state statute requiring compliance with federal law (which in turn requires a hearing) satisfies the requirement, calling this 'two step process' 'too slim a statutory reed.' Furthermore, the court held that a subsequent legislative amendment (P.A. 04-94) expanding the definition of 'contested case' to include hearings required by state regulation did not apply retroactively. The court reasoned that creating a new right of appeal is a substantive, not procedural, change in the law, and substantive changes are presumed to apply prospectively only.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict, formalistic approach to administrative appeals jurisdiction in Connecticut prior to the legislative fix in P.A. 04-94. It clarifies that the jurisdictional grant under the UAPA for 'contested cases' is narrowly construed, with the authority to grant judicial review resting solely with the state legislature. The case also provides a key precedent on the retroactivity of statutes, establishing that creating a new right of appeal is a substantive change to the law that applies prospectively. This analysis impacts how future legislative amendments that expand or contract access to the courts will be interpreted and applied to pending cases.
