January 2024: Week Two

By Andy Delaney

So far, so good. Maybe I'll keep the blog reasonably updated this year. Time will tell.

Two opinions issued January 12.  

First, we have an appeal from a Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC) order approving a contract for the purchase of out-of-state renewable natural gas under this statute. Vermont Gas Systems, Inc. (VGS) entered a contract to purchase landfill gas from a NY landfill and asked the PUC to approve the contract. Petitioner, a VGS ratepayer, intervened to protect against rate increases for an energy source that presented no environmental benefit.   

The PUC approved the contract, reasoning that the plan for the contract would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and comply with the Vermont Global Warming Solutions Act of 2020 (GWSA). I won’t dive into the procedural and factual history other than to say a hearing officer made findings in favor of the contract, which the PUC more or less adopted and upheld.

Petitioner appeals, arguing that the emissions-reductions findings aren’t supported and that the contract doesn’t comply with least-cost planning principles.

SCOV notes that it generally gives PUC decisions deference. Because petitioner’s primary arguments—according to SCOV—are that the findings aren’t supported by the evidence—it characterizes its review as “narrow and restricted.” With this backdrop, it’s no surprise that SCOV ultimately affirms. This opinion is worth a closer look if you’re dealing with any issues involving the GWSA or least-cost planning principles. There’s a topical discussion of both. And that’s why we include the link. In re Vermont Gas Systems, Inc., 2024 VT 2.  

Our second opinion this week deals with a no-stalking order. Plaintiff and defendant own neighboring property and live across from one another on a private road. The parties settled a prior adverse-possession action by defendant by agreement at mediation. But that wasn’t the end of it. Plaintiff testified that defendant has threatened her on several occasions, and one time slapped her across the face and knocked her cellphone out of her hand. Defendant testified that plaintiff drives a small ATV along the property line, honking and shouting. The trial court concluded that this was “apparently just to annoy” defendant. They both accused the other of “shouting, making obscene gestures, and taking surreptitious photographs.” Mr. Rogers would be appalled.

The incident that led to the no-stalking order in this case involved an arborvitae bush planted on defendant’s property but allegedly encroaching on plaintiff’s property, and some not-very-neighborly-not-very-neighborly-at-all behavior surrounding it. I won’t give a play-by-play account, but if this were a Reddit thread, I think it’s safe to say it would get an ESH tag. Ultimately—and this was on camera—“defendant shook and grabbed plaintiff while ‘screaming at her in an enraged manner with profanity-laced language.’” The trial court concluded that regardless of why, defendant did assault plaintiff twice—that these constituted “threats” under the statute—and that plaintiff was entitled to a no-stalking order under the statute.

Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding the altercations were “threats” under the statute and that his conduct in defending his property was constitutionally privileged. SCOV reasons that the trial court was justified in considering that two physical incidents as “threats” under the statute, despite defendant’s arguments to the contrary. SCOV also reasons that defendant’s defense-of-property argument doesn’t apply in the context of the anti-stalking statute, making a distinction between purely statutory and the common law. SCOV holds that “the common law defense-of-property privilege is not a defense to a civil stalking order,” but still drops a footnote explaining that, while it may not be applicable as a discrete defense, such evidence may be relevant for other purposes. In the end, SCOV affirms. Haupt v. Langlois, 2024 VT 3.