Vistra Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

── Vistra Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority ── Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut Date: May 26, 2026 Author: Mullins Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Vistra Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority VISTRA CORP. ET AL. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY (SC 21120) Mullins, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Ecker, Alexander, Dannehy and Bright, Js. Syllabus Pursuant to statute (§§ 16-243q (a) and 16-245a (a)), electric suppliers licensed in Connecticut must satisfy the state’s renewable portfolio standards (RPS) by demonstrating that a certain percentage of the electricity that they supply to customers has been generated by certain classes of renewable energy sources. Pursuant further to statute (§ 16-245 (k)), the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) “shall annually conduct an uncontested proceeding to determine whether any licensee has failed to comply with [the state’s RPS] during the preceding year” and “shall require [an alternative compliance] payment by a licensee” in the event of noncompliance. In 2022, the plaintiff electric suppliers entered into a settlement agreement to resolve an investigation conducted by the defendant PURA into the plaintiffs’ compliance with certain regulatory requirements. Pursuant to that agree- ment, the plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily withdraw from the Connecticut electric supplier market and to make certain payments in order to resolve any actual or potential claims against them. The agreement also provided that the plaintiffs would be obligated “to pay the full amount owed” for their 2022 RPS obligations if PURA ultimately determined that the amounts they had paid pursuant to the agreement, using the calculations contemplated therein, “did not meet their full obligations.” PURA ultimately approved the agreement. The plaintiffs then filed in their respective licensing dockets documentation of their compliance with the 2022 RPS, as required by the agreement, and PURA confirmed that the plaintiffs had satisfied their 2022 RPS obligations. Thereafter, in 2023, PURA initiated a new docket to conduct its annual review of licensees’ compliance with the 2022 RPS, as required by § 16-245 (k). The plaintiffs resubmitted their 2022 RPS compliance reports in the RPS docket, as directed by PURA. PURA, however, then notified the plaintiffs that the payments they made pursuant to the agreement did not satisfy their 2022 RPS obligations because certain calculations in the RPS docket differed from those in the plaintiffs’ 2022 RPS compliance reports. Rather than refiling their compliance reports, the plaintiffs filed with PURA, pursuant to statute (§ 4-176 (a)), a pet