In re Department of Public Service

6 Citing cases

  1. In re East Georgia Cogeneration Ltd. Partnership

    614 A.2d 799 (Vt. 1992)   Cited 17 times
    Noting that findings adopted by Board are accepted unless clearly erroneous, and that Board orders are presumed to be valid

    I. EGC first argues that it was entitled to the rates in Docket 5177 when it tendered the contract between it and VPX obligating it to produce power. It relies on our holding in In re Department of Public Service, 157 Vt. 120, 125, 596 A.2d 1303, 1306 (1991) (the Ryegate decision), where we held that avoided-cost rates adopted pursuant to Rule 4.100 are available as a matter of federal law to qualifying facilities that incur a "legally enforceable obligation" for the delivery of power. Federal regulations establish a qualifying facility's right to avoided-cost rates once it is committed to "provide energy or capacity pursuant to a legally enforceable obligation." 18 C.F.R. § 292.304(d)(2).

  2. Petition of Vt. Elec. Power Producers, Inc.

    165 Vt. 282 (Vt. 1996)   Cited 11 times
    Affirming that Commission has "all the powers of a trial court" in proceedings over which it has jurisdiction

    In prior decisions, we have reviewed the history and purpose of PURPA and "the unique way in which Vermont has implemented PURPA." In re Vermont Power Exch., 159 Vt. 168, 171-72, 617 A.2d 418, 419 (1992); see In re Department of Pub. Serv., 161 Vt. 97, 102, 632 A.2d 1373, 1376 (1993); In re East Georgia Cogeneration Ltd. Partnership, 158 Vt. 525, 528-29, 614 A.2d 799, 801-02 (1992); In re Department of Pub. Serv., 157 Vt. 120, 121-22, 126, 596 A.2d 1303, 1304-05, 1307 (1991); In re Vicon Recovery Sys., 153 Vt. 539, 543-44, 572 A.2d 1355, 1357-58 (1990). Rather than allowing cogenerators and other small power producers to sell electric power directly to utility companies, the PSB, pursuant to the authority granted in 30 V.S.A. § 209(a)(8), promulgated PSB Rule 4.100, which authorized the designation of a single purchasing agent to serve as an intermediary between the power producers and the purchasing utilities.

  3. In re Vermont Power Exchange

    617 A.2d 418 (Vt. 1992)   Cited 10 times

    In no sense have the utilities agreed to any actions of VPX. Their obligation to purchase power pursuant to VPX contracts is entirely created by the PURPA laws and associated regulations. 157 Vt. 120, 126, 596 A.2d 1303, 1307 (1991) (citation omitted). The "prices, terms or rates charged by the purchasing agent" are established by order of the PSB. PSB Rules § 4.102(C).

  4. Littlejohn v. Timberquest Park at Magic, LLC

    116 F. Supp. 3d 422 (D. Vt. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    Rather, a contract is incomplete only if one party's obligations are so attenuated as to render consideration merely illusory.” Petition of Dep't of Pub. Serv., 157 Vt. 120, 596 A.2d 1303, 1309 (1991) (Morse, J., dissenting); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 79 (1981) (“If the requirement of consideration is met, there is no additional requirement of ... ‘mutuality of obligation.’ ”). The FAA would preempt Vermont from imposing such a requirement only in the case of arbitration provisions. See AT & T Mobility LLC, 131 S.Ct. at 1741.

  5. Littlejohn v. TimberQuest Park at Magic, LLC

    Case No. 5:14-cv-200 (D. Vt. Jul. 20, 2015)

    Rather, a contract is incomplete only if one party's obligations are so attenuated as to render consideration merely illusory." Petition of Dep't of Pub. Serv., 596 A.2d 1303, 1309 (Vt. 1991) (Morse, J., dissenting); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 79 (1981) ("If the requirement of consideration is met, there is no additional requirement of . . . 'mutuality of obligation.'"). The FAA would preempt Vermont from imposing such a requirement only in the case of arbitration provisions.

  6. Lowery v. Air Support International

    982 S.W.2d 326 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 14 times

    Id. at 395-396. SeeIn re Department of Pub.Serv., 596 A.2d 1303, 1309 (Vt. 1991). Similarly, in Klondike Industries Corp. v. Gibson, 741 P.2d 1161 (Alaska 1987), a resort owner contracted with a relative to manage the resort.