News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
NJ Appeals Court Affirms NJ BPU’s Siting Regulations for Solar Projects
“Appellant Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition (MAREC) appeals from a February 17, 2023, final agency decision by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities denying reconsideration of the Board’s order establishing siting requirements for its Competitive Solar Incentive (CSI) program, pursuant to the Solar Act of 2021, N.J.S.A. 48:3-114 to -120. We affirm.” [Emphasis added]
“On June 9, 2021, Governor Phil Murphy signed the Act to incentivize increased solar development in New Jersey. The Act directs the Board to create a solar facilities program “with administratively set incentive values, and a solicitation process for awarding contracts for grid supply solar facilities and net metered solar facilities greater than five megawatts.” In re Competitive Solar Incentive (“CSI”) Program, No. QO21101186, 2022 N.J. PUC LEXIS 367, at 13-14 (Bd. of Pub. Utils. Dec. 7, 2022). See also N.J.S.A. 48:3-114.”
“On appeal, MAREC repeats its argument the 5% county limit in N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f) only applies when a project would exceed the 2.5% Statewide limit or is subject to the other limiting criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(c). In other words, if a project does not exceed the 2.5% Statewide limit and will not A-2232-22 9 be built on lands proscribed by N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(c), MAREC asserts “it can be built on land containing prime agricultural soils and soils of Statewide importance regardless of whether it will exceed the 5% county concentration limit.”
“We will ordinarily defer to an agency’s reasonable construction of statutes it is charged with implementing. In re Implementation of L. 2012, C. 24, N.J.S.A. 48:3-87(t), 443 N.J. Super. 73, 78 (App. Div. 2015) (citing In re Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co.’s Rate Unbundling, 167 N.J. 377, 384 (2001)). However, we are not bound to an agency’s interpretation of a statute and our review in this regard is always de novo. L.A. v. Bd. of Educ. of Trenton, Mercer Cty., 221 N.J. 192, 204 (2015).”
“The goal in cases of statutory construction is . . . to seek and give effect to the Legislature’s intent.” Nw. Bergen Cnty. Utils. Auth. v. Donovan, 226 N.J. 432, 443-44 (2016). “[T]he best indicator of that intent is the statutory language.” DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005). “‘Only if there is ambiguity in the statutory language will we turn to extrinsic evidence,’ including legislative history.” In re Implementation of L. 2018, C. 16 Regarding the Establishment of Zero Emission Certificate Program for Eligible Nuclear Power Plants, 467 N.J. Super. 154, 179 (2021) (quoting Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen’s Ret. Sys., 192 N.J. 189, 195-96 (2007)).”
“We ascribe to the statutory words their ordinary meaning and significance . . . .” DiProspero, 183 N.J. at 492. “We generally do not assume the Legislature intended anything other than the plain language of the statute.” A-2232-22 12 State v. Burnham, 474 N.J. Super. 226, 231 (App. Div. 2022) (citing Zabilowicz v. Kelsey, 200 N.J. 507, 517 (2009)). “The Legislature knows how to draft a statute to achieve [a] result when it wishes to do so.” Zabilowicz, 200 N.J. at 517. Our de novo review of the record convinces us N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f) is unambiguous and the Board correctly interpreted the Act. N.J.S.A. 48:3- 119(f) clearly states “in no case shall the projects approved by the [B]oard pursuant to this section occupy more than [5%] of the unpreserved land containing prime agricultural soils and soils of Statewide importance . . . located within any county’s designated Agricultural Development Area . . . .” The “section” referenced in N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f) intends all N.J.S.A. 48:3- 119, not only subsection (f), which enumerates the waiver process. Therefore, the plain and ordinary meaning of the text indicates the per county limit is not eligible for the waiver process.”
The Act seeks to preserve these vital natural resources while encouraging the likewise important and rising development of clean solar energy. Our review of the record convinces us the Board’s interpretation of the Act justifiably balanced these important considerations in a manner faithful to the statute’s text. Affirmed.” [Emphasis added]
NJ Superior Court Appellate Court Order (04/23/2024)
On appeal from the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, Docket No. QO21101186.
Order 8E (02/17/2023)
See docket link below for all orders in this matter.
QO21101186 (10/15/2021)
In The Matter Of The Competitive Solar Incentive (“CSI”) Program Pursuant To P.L. 2021, C.169.
