- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Montana
- /
- Vote Solar v. Montana Department of Public Service Regulation
Vote Solar v. Montana Department of Public Service Regulation
Geography
Year
2017
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2017
Status
Affirming district court's conclusions that the PSC’s calculation of the avoided-cost rate was arbitrary and unlawful and that PSC arbitrarily and unreasonably calculated QF “capacity contribution” values and arbitrarily and unreasonably reduced maximum-length QF-1 contracts to 15 years.
Geography
Docket number
DA 19-0223
Court/admin entity
United States → State Courts → Montana Supreme Court (Mont.)
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US) → Other Statutes and Regulations (US)State Law Claims (US) → Utility Regulation (US)
Principal law
United States → Montana Administrative Procedures ActUnited States → Montana Utilities Regulation LawUnited States → Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA)
At issue
Challenge to contract rates and maximum contract lengths for small solar qualifying facilities.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Search results
08/24/2020
Affirming district court's conclusions that the PSC’s calculation of the avoided-cost rate was arbitrary and unlawful and that PSC arbitrarily and unreasonably calculated QF “capacity contribution” values and arbitrarily and unreasonably reduced maximum-length QF-1 contracts to 15 years.
The Montana Supreme Court agreed with a lower court that the Montana Public Service Commission’s (PSC’s) reduction of standard-offer contract rates and maximum contract lengths for small solar qualifying facilities (QFs) violated the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) and Montana law. The court concluded that the record did not support the PSC’s decision not to include a “carbon adder” when setting the utility’s avoided-cost rate; the PSC had decide not to include it because the change in presidential administrations decreased the likelihood of carbon emissions regulation. The court held that exclusion of carbon dioxide emissions cost violated PURPA, stating: “While carbon price forecasting may be innately difficult, to assign carbon pricing a value of ‘zero’ because of its speculative nature simply does not compensate QFs for the full avoided-cost rate.” The court further found the PSC justification for the exclusion to be arbitrary because it was inconsistent with the PSC’s inclusion of a carbon adder in another recent case involving purchase of wind energy from small QFs. In addition, the Supreme Court also affirmed the lower court’s findings of other violations.
Decision
–
Summary
Challenge to contract rates and maximum contract lengths for small solar qualifying facilities.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance