Title: In re VT Power Exchange

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-234


 In re Investigation of                       Supreme Court
 November 15, 1990 Rate
 Design Filing of Vermont                     On Appeal from
 Power Exchange                               Public Service Board

                                              May Term, 1992


 Richard H. Cowart, Chair

 Donald L. Rushford, General Counsel, and Kimberly K. Hayden of Ryan Smith
   & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, for appellant

 Michael Marks of Lisman & Lisman, Burlington, for appellee Vermont Power
   Exchange

 George E. Young, Special Counsel, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee
   Department of Public Service


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Peck, J. (Ret.),
           Specially Assigned


      DOOLEY, J.   Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (CVPS) appeals
 from an order of the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) that part of the
 costs of operation of Vermont Power Exchange, Inc. (VPX), the state's
 purchasing agent for power delivered by small power producers pursuant to
 the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C. {
 824a-3, must be borne by the regulated electric utilities in Vermont.  CVPS
 argues that the order was beyond the power of the PSB, lacks a sufficient
 jurisdictional finding and is unsupported by the evidence.  We affirm.
      This case arises from the unique way in which Vermont has implemented
 PURPA, which was enacted for the purpose of encouraging cogeneration and
 small power production facilities.  See FERC v. Mississippi,