Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

JOE MARKLEY v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL ET AL. (SC 18750)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, McLachlan and Eveleigh, Js. Argued March 23--officially released May 24, 2011

Doug Dubitsky and Peter C. Bowman, for the appellant (plaintiff). Mark F. Kohler, assistant attorney general, with whom was Robert L. Marconi, assistant attorney general, for the appellees (defendants). Mary J. Healey, consumer counsel, and Joseph A. Rosenthal, principal attorney, filed a brief for the office of consumer counsel as amicus curiae.

Opinion

ROGERS, C. J. The plaintiff, Joe Markley, an electric utility ratepayer, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action against the defendants, the state department of public utility control (department) and its chairman, Kevin DelGobbo.1 The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action because: (1) the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with the department; and (2) his claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.2 Because we agree with the parties' contention that the trial court improperly dismissed the action pursuant to the administrative exhaustion doctrine, the sole issue presently before this court is whether the plaintiff's claims are barred by sovereign immunity. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff's action arose from a financing order issued by the defendants pursuant to No. 10-179 of the 2010 Public Acts (P.A. 10-179), requiring that the state's two investor-owned electric power companies, Connecticut Light and Power Company (CL&P) and United Illuminating Company (United) (jointly, distributors), continue to charge their rate paying customers a fee that would otherwise have expired, with the proceeds going to the state's general fund. The plaintiff alleged that the financing order constituted an illegal tax on the distributors' customers, issued in excess of the defendants' statutory authority and in violation of the customers' constitutional rights. We begin with a brief overview of the relevant statutory scheme. Electric power is distributed to Connecticut customers both by the distributors and by a half dozen nonprofit municipal electric companies (municipal electric utilities) owned and operated by municipalities for the benefit of their residents.3 The department is primarily responsible for regulating the distributors; General Statutes

Download Markley v. Dept. of Public Utility Control.pdf

Connecticut Law