In re Maui Elec. Co. - 141 Haw. 249, 408 P.3d 1 (2017)

Rule:

Procedural due process requires that a person have an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. This includes the right to submit evidence and argument on the issues. Although the parties have the right to present evidence, cross-examine opposing evidence, and submit rebuttal evidence, considerations of relevancy, materiality, and repetition limit the presentation of evidence in contested case proceedings. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-10(1) (2012).

Facts:

On March 31, 2015, Maui Electric filed an application with the Commission (the "Application"), seeking approval of a power purchase agreement between Maui Electric and HC&S (the "Agreement"). The Application indicated that the Agreement restated and amended an existing power purchase agreement between Maui Electric and HC&S. The existing agreement between the parties was approved by the Commission in 1990 to continue in effect through December 31, 1999, and on a year-to-year basis thereafter subject to termination. On April 17, 2015, Sierra Club timely filed a motion to intervene or to participate without intervention in the proceedings for the Application in order to assist the Commission in fully developing the facts and law regarding the fuel mix at the Pu'unene Plant and other matters at issue in the proceeding. Sierra Club sought intervention on behalf of itself and its members who live near the Pu'unene Plant. Sierra Club asserted a fundamental due process right to participate in a hearing on the grounds that the Agreement would impact Sierra Club's members' health, aesthetic, and recreational interests. Sierra Club also asserted its organizational interest in reducing Hawaii's dependence on imported fossil fuels and advancing a clean energy grid and were concerned "about the public health and visibility impacts of burning coal." Maui Electric filed a memorandum in opposition to Sierra Club's motion for intervention or participation asserting that Sierra Club failed to establish a right to participate in a hearing. However, it did not address Sierra Club's assertion of a right to a due process hearing.

Issue:

Was a hearing required as a requirement of due process?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

Under the circumstances of this case, the protected property interest in a clean and healthful environment asserted by Sierra Club necessitated a hearing by the Commission to consider the impacts of approving the Agreement on Sierra Club's members' right to a clean and healthful environment, including the release of harmful greenhouse gases by the Pu'unene Plant that would result from the Agreement, whether the cost of the energy under the Agreement was reasonable in light of the potential for harmful emissions, and whether the terms of the Agreement were prudent in light of the potential hidden and long-term consequences of the Agreement. Procedural due process requires that a person have an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. This includes the right to submit evidence and argument on the issues. Although the parties have the right to present evidence, cross-examine opposing evidence, and submit rebuttal evidence, considerations of relevancy, materiality, and repetition limit the presentation of evidence in contested case proceedings. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-10(1) (2012).