Supreme Court

No. 2020-115-M.P.

(Docket No. 4688)

In re Block Island Power Company 

Petition for Declaratory Judgment.

:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision 

before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers 

are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme 

Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, 

Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or 

Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical 

or other formal errors in order that corrections may be 

made before the opinion is published.
- 1 -

Supreme Court

No. 2020-115-M.P.

(Docket No. 4688)

In re Block Island Power Company

Petition for Declaratory Judgment.

:

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, Long, JJ. 

O P I N I O N

Chief Justice Suttell, for the Court. This Court issued a writ of certiorari to 

review a decision and judgment of the Public Utilities Commission (the PUC) 

regarding the Town of New Shoreham Project, enacted by G.L. 1956 § 39-26.1-7. 

The petitioner, Block Island Utility District d/b/a Block Island Power Company 

(BIPCo), requests a reversal of the PUC’s decision to deny BIPCo’s petition for a 

declaratory judgment. BIPCo sought a declaratory judgment declaring that the 

enabling act, specifically § 39-26.1-7(f), requires the costs for BIPCo’s

interconnection facilities and backup transformer to be socialized across all electric 

ratepayers in Rhode Island, not just those in the Town of New Shoreham (Block 

Island or the town).1 As an intervening party, Narragansett Electric Company d/b/a 

National Grid (National Grid) argued before the PUC that § 39-26.1-7(f) does not 

1 This opinion will use the terms Block Island, the Town of New Shoreham, and the 

town, interchangeably.
- 2 -

encompass BIPCo’s interconnection facilities or backup transformer and, therefore, 

BIPCo and its ratepayers are solely responsible for those costs. The PUC issued a 

decision and judgment against BIPCo. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the 

decision of the PUC.

I

Facts and Travel

We glean the facts in this case from the PUC’s decision and judgment, the 

transcripts of both open meetings held before the PUC, and the submissions of the 

parties.

The Town of New Shoreham Project

In 2009, the Legislature enacted § 39-26.1-7 (the enabling act), which 

authorized the Town of New Shoreham Project (the project). The enabling act 

greenlit the construction of a five-turbine wind farm off the coast of Block Island, 

which is twelve miles south of Rhode Island’s mainland. Specifically, the enabling 

act declared that the project would “facilitate the construction of a small-scale 

offshore wind [farm] * * * including an undersea transmission cable that 

interconnects Block Island to the mainland[.]” Section 39-26.1-7(a).2 Within the 

2 The Block Island wind farm was completed in 2016 and BIPCo interconnected to 

it in May 2017. There is no dispute among the parties that the interconnection exists 

and operates today. The matter before this Court concerns the allocation of certain 

costs between BIPCo and National Grid, according to the terms of the enabling act.
- 3 -

statute, the Legislature described its vision for this small-scale wind farm to be a 

“demonstration project[.]” Section 39-26.1-7(a). As the first of its kind in the nation, 

the Block Island wind farm was meant to symbolize Rhode Island’s unique role 

pioneering solutions for renewable energy across the United States.

Section (a) of the enabling act enumerated four public-policy goals driving

the project; namely, to (1) “position the state to take advantage of the economic 

development benefits of the emerging offshore wind industry”; (2) “promote the 

development of renewable energy sources that increase the nation’s energy 

independence from foreign sources of fossil fuels”; (3) “reduce the adverse 

environmental and health impacts of traditional fossil fuel energy sources”; and (4) 

“provide the town of New Shoreham with an electrical connection to the mainland.” 

Section 39-26.1-7(a).

When the Legislature passed the enabling act, Block Island was not at all 

connected to Rhode Island’s mainland electrical grid. For many years, without a 

hookup to mainland power, Block Island sourced its electricity exclusively from 

diesel-powered generators. These generators were operated by Block Island’s sole 

electric utility provider, BIPCo.3 One of the imperatives for the enabling act was to, 

at last, provide Block Island with an alternative power source that would render its 

polluting diesel generators obsolete.

3 At the time the enabling act was passed, BIPCo was a privately owned company.
- 4 -

The vehicle for this new power source—and the subject at the heart of this 

case—is an underwater transmission cable. See § 39-26.1-7(f). This cable is but one 

piece of the multifaceted project, which includes the five-turbine wind farm, an 

underwater transmission cable connecting the wind farm to a National Grid-owned 

and -operated substation on Block Island, the substation, and an underwater 

transmission cable connecting the substation to the mainland grid in the Town of 

Narragansett. Of the two transmission cables involved in the project, the one 

relevant to this case is the second—the cable that runs from National Grid’s 

substation on Block Island to the mainland. See § 39-26.1-7(a) (contemplating “an 

undersea transmission cable that interconnects Block Island to the mainland”).

This system operates by transmitting wind-generated power from the turbines 

to the National Grid substation via the first transmission cable, at which point it 

diverts energy from the substation to BIPCo’s local distribution system and then 

transfers the remaining power, unused by BIPCo’s customers, to the mainland grid 

via the second transmission cable. Thus, the substation serves as the juncture—or 

interconnection—between BIPCo’s distribution system and National Grid’s network 

accessing the mainland.

The two pieces of infrastructure at issue in this case are (1) BIPCo’s 

interconnection facilities and (2) the backup transformer. BIPCo’s interconnection 

facilities include the “wooden poles, overhead lines, a switch, and circuit breaker”
- 5 -

required to connect its local distribution system to the National Grid substation 

where it receives power from the wind farm. The backup transformer would, as the 

name suggests, act as a backup for the principal transformer that powers BIPCo’s 

interconnection to the substation.4 BIPCo argues that both units—the 

interconnection facilities and backup transformer—are covered in the cost allocation 

scheme laid out in section (f) of the enabling act.

Section (f) of the enabling act governs the construction, ownership, and cost 

allocation associated with the transmission cable project. Section 39-26.1-7(f). In 

relevant part, section (f) provides that “the [Division of Public Utilities and Carriers]

shall support transmission rates and conditions that allow for the costs related to the 

transmission cable and related facilities to be charged in transmission rates in a 

manner that socializes the costs throughout Rhode Island.” Id. (emphasis added). 

This portion of section (f) provides the basis for BIPCo’s claim that its 

4 Typically, utility servicers retain spare or backup transformers because weather and 

manufacturing defects commonly cause outages. Here, however, the transformer 

powering BIPCo’s electricity supply to the island requires a special voltage due to 

the unique nature of the wind-powered project. As such, an additional transformer 

for this project is inordinately expensive and threatens extensive delays to build and 

obtain. BIPCo claimed that it could take as long as six months to procure a 

replacement transformer if necessary, which would force BIPCo to resort to its diesel 

generators to provide the island with power. At the time BIPCo petitioned the PUC 

for a declaratory judgment, BIPCo had not yet procured a backup transformer from 

National Grid, but discussions between the two entities concerning the cost and 

specifications for the transformer had taken place.
- 6 -

interconnection expenses should be socialized to all Rhode Island ratepayers 

because, arguably, those expenses qualify as “related facilities” costs.5

Section (f) also granted National Grid the option to own and operate the 

transmission cable project by purchasing “the transmission cable and related 

facilities” from the developer. Section 39-26.1-7(f) (“The electric distribution 

company, at its option, may elect to own, operate, or otherwise participate in such 

transmission cable project. * * * The electric distribution company may elect to 

purchase the transmission cable and related facilities from the developer or an 

affiliate of the developer, pursuant to the terms of a transmission facility’s purchase 

agreement[.]”). On January 15, 2015, National Grid exercised that option and 

purchased the transmission cable project from the wind farm developer, Deepwater 

Wind Block Island, LLC (Deepwater), including the “engineering, permits, property 

rights, and other development work[.]” Deepwater subsequently constructed and 

installed the wind turbines, while National Grid built the Block Island substation and 

the underwater transmission cables connecting the wind farm, the island, and the 

mainland.

5 Before the PUC and in its briefs, BIPCo claimed that its facility interconnection 

costs summed to $263,700; grid interconnection costs were $1,836,000; and the 

spare transformer cost was $450,000. The total cost, $2,549,700, socialized among 

the roughly two thousand Block Island ratepayers would translate to a charge of 

$1,275 per customer. That amount would be collected from BIPCo’s ratepayers over 

a six-year amortization period. If the total cost were to be socialized across all Rhode 

Island ratepayers, the charge would come to about $5 per customer.
- 7 -

The Local Service Agreement

The project is subject to the authority of ISO-New England Inc. (ISO-NE), a 

private, nonprofit entity that operates within the federal regulatory hierarchy headed 

by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

6

 ISO-NE promulgates 

transmission rates, terms, and conditions for utility projects operating in New 

England through its ISO-NE Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff (the 

ISO-NE tariff), which ensures regional compliance with federal standards.

As required by federal regulation, four agreements were filed with FERC in 

connection with the project, including a Local Service Agreement (LSA) executed 

between BIPCo (the Transmission Customer), New England Power Company (NEP)

(the Transmission Owner), and ISO-NE (the Regional Transmission Organization). 

The LSA between BIPCo, NEP, and ISO-NE incorporated all terms of the ISO-NE 

tariff. The original LSA was submitted, uncontested, before FERC, allowing the 

commission to simply approve the agreement as presented without imposing its own 

determination.

6

ISO-NE serves as one of the many independent system operators or regional 

transmission organizations in the nation created by FERC in the late 1990s. See 

Regional Transmission Organizations, 89 FERC ¶ 61,285 (Dec. 20, 1999); see also

18 C.F.R. § 35.34. ISO-NE manages the power companies that own the transmission 

lines in New England, in this case New England Power Company—a wholly owned 

subsidiary of National Grid—under a set of rates, terms, and conditions contained in 

the ISO-NE Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff (ISO-NE tariff).
- 8 -

In a letter to FERC dated April 7, 2015, NEP and ISO-NE jointly sought to 

amend the original LSA because the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (the 

division) determined that the original LSA did not comply with the enabling act. 

Specifically, the division informed NEP and ISO-NE that the LSA improperly 

calculated the transmission cable surcharge because it did not assess a higher rate to 

Block Island ratepayers, as section (f) directs.

7

 To rectify the error and bring the 

LSA—and by extension the tariff—in compliance with section (f), the LSA was 

amended to adjust the rate calculation such that Block Island ratepayers would never 

pay less than 120 percent of the rate charged to typical National Grid customers.

7 Section (f) provides that the transmission rates for the cable shall be calculated in 

the following manner:

“The allocation of the costs related to the transmission 

cable through transmission rates or otherwise shall be 

structured so that the estimated impact on the typical 

residential customer bill for transmission costs for 

customers in the town of New Shoreham shall be higher

than the estimated impact on the typical residential 

customer bill for customers on the mainland of the electric 

distribution company. This higher charge for the 

customers in the town of New Shoreham shall be 

developed by allocating the actual cable costs based on the 

annual peak demands of [BIPCo] and the electric 

distribution company, and these resultant costs recovered 

in the per-KWh charges of each company. * * * [T]he 

difference in the individual charge per KWh or per 

customer/month shall not exceed the ratio of average 

demand to peak demand for [BIPCo], relative to the 

electric distribution company, currently at 1.8 to 1.0 

respectively.” Section 39-26.1-7(f) (emphasis added).
- 9 -

FERC tariffs, including the ISO-NE tariff, typically contain “Direct 

Assignment Facility” (DAF) charges that an interconnecting customer must pay to 

the electric distribution company as reimbursement for the cost of connecting the 

new customer to the existing grid. BIPCo’s LSA contained a rate schedule, Schedule 

21, which listed the DAF charges BIPCo owed to National Grid for the cost of 

connecting to the grid. The DAF charges included under Schedule 21 were as 

follows: “Interconnection facilities and associated equipment: [one ]34.5kV breaker, 

[one ]34.5/4.16kV/2.4kV transformer, [and a] 5kV insulated line to customer 

substation and associated equipment.” Schedule 21, however, by its own terms, 

operated “in accordance with the rates, terms and conditions of Schedule 21-NEP[,]” 

which came from the ISO-NE tariff and was incorporated by reference into the LSA. 

Schedule 21-NEP included pro forma language providing:

“[I]nterconnection facilities and additional facilities shall 

be the financial responsibility of the Transmission 

Customer, to the extent consistent with Commission

policy.”

BIPCo did not dispute any of the LSA terms quoted above, but rather argued 

before the PUC that the enabling act language controls. BIPCo submitted that the 

division’s previous amendment to bring the LSA in conformity with section (f)

established that the enabling act trumps the tariff. National Grid disputed BIPCo’s 

argument, cautioning the PUC that a ruling in favor of BIPCo would challenge the 
- 10 -

tariff’s authority, flout FERC’s plenary jurisdiction over the wholesale energy 

market, and potentially create federal preemption issues.

The PUC Decision

On January 31, 2017, BIPCo filed a petition for declaratory judgment before 

the PUC. BIPCo contended that it should not be solely responsible for shouldering

the costs of (1) the interconnection facilities required to hook up to National Grid’s

substation and (2) the backup transformer because these are “related facilities” with 

respect to the transmission cable that should be socialized to all Rhode Island 

ratepayers per § 39-26.1-7(f). BIPCo averred that FERC precedent, which requires 

interconnecting customers to pay for interconnections to the main grid, does not 

apply to BIPCo because § 39-26.1-7(f) is a “specific provision that overrides the 

general interconnection tariff.” Additionally, BIPCo maintained that the backup 

transformer is not a proper DAF charge under the LSA because the LSA refers to 

only one transformer, not a second, backup transformer.

On February 25, 2017, National Grid intervened and filed an objection to 

BIPCo’s petition. National Grid advanced two key arguments, first that categorizing

BIPCo’s interconnection expenses as socialized costs would contradict FERC 

precedent; and second that § 39-26.1-7(f) unambiguously excludes the costs for 

which BIPCo seeks reimbursement because the statute makes no reference to 

BIPCo’s interconnection or its transformer.
- 11 -

In March 2017, the division filed a memorandum in support of National Grid’s 

objection. The division argued that the socialization for “related facilities” should 

be limited solely to those costs incurred by National Grid, not BIPCo. The division 

also concurred with National Grid’s claim that BIPCo’s interconnection is entirely 

separate from the socialization scheme the Legislature established in section (f).

On May 30, 2017, the PUC held an open meeting to hear oral arguments from 

BIPCo, National Grid, and the division. At the meeting, BIPCo argued that the PUC 

should construe “related facilities” to include its interconnection facilities and 

backup transformer because such a reading would (1) be consistent with the 

legislative intent of the statute; and (2) properly regard the statute, not the ISO-NE 

tariff, as the prevailing authority for the cable cost calculations.

National Grid countered BIPCo’s claims with several arguments, asserting 

that (1) the Legislature never intended all costs to be socialized, only those incurred 

by National Grid for the assets it bought from Deepwater; (2) the enabling act does 

not override the ISO-NE tariff; (3) BIPCo’s interconnection facilities and backup 

transformer are “sole-use”—or facilities that benefit only the customer—which

FERC precedent requires the customer to cover; and (4) deciding for BIPCo would 

open the door for other similarly situated customers to seek recovery for 

interconnecting costs.
- 12 -

In an open meeting held on July 27, 2017, the PUC issued its decision with 

two votes in favor of National Grid and one vote against. The majority of 

commissioners were convinced that FERC precedent and the ISO-NE tariff 

contemplate BIPCo as an ordinary, voluntary interconnecting customer solely 

responsible for the costs of interconnection. Chairwoman Curran discussed “how 

interconnections are dealt with in the wholesale market” and stated that, typically, 

“the interconnection to something like the cable * * * is the responsibility of the 

customer.” Commissioner Gold also added that § 39-26.1-7 does not technically 

require BIPCo to interconnect to the project at all and that “the legislative goal” of 

“moving the state and the region off fossil fuels * * * can be met even if Block Island 

were to continue to use their diesel generators.”

In its written decision, the PUC majority engaged with the statutory

interpretation issue in greater detail and reasoned that “the transmission cable and 

related facilities are treated [in the statute] as a package of items.” The conjunctive 

phrase “transmission cable and related facilities” deliberately “isolate[d] the 

equipment and infrastructure as items that National Grid * * * elect[ed] to purchase 

from the developer[,]” according to the PUC. (Emphasis added.) This infrastructure 

included everything National Grid received from Deepwater, but not the 

interconnection facilities, which pertain exclusively to BIPCo and were never owned 

by Deepwater. The PUC decided that, because BIPCo’s facilities were not 
- 13 -

“necessary to serve the developer’s project,” they are not “related facilities” to the 

transmission cable under § 39-26.1-7(f) and that the costs thereof were not subject 

to be socialized.

Commissioner DeSimone did not pen a written dissent, but he did articulate 

his reasons for opposing the majority’s decision at the July meeting. He stressed

that, when viewing the statute in its entirety, it became clear to him that failing to 

socialize the costs of BIPCo’s interconnection would frustrate a fundamental 

legislative purpose of § 39-26.1-7: to connect the Town of New Shoreham to the 

mainland. Commissioner DeSimone further dismissed National Grid’s concerns 

that a decision in favor of BIPCo would lead to a slippery slope because the statute 

is single purpose, necessarily limiting any ruling from the PUC to this case and this 

project. Finally, Commissioner DeSimone rejected National Grid’s claim that 

BIPCo is a voluntary interconnecting customer, instead perceiving BIPCo as an 

entity composed of ratepayers—the citizens and businesses of Block Island—who 

had no choice whether to interconnect. This made the interconnection cost an

“involuntary assessment” to Block Island ratepayers, according to Commissioner 

DeSimone.

The PUC filed a decision and judgment in favor of National Grid on May 6, 

2020. On May 12, 2020, BIPCo filed a petition for writ of certiorari, seeking review 

of the PUC’s order, which we granted.
- 14 -

II

Standard of Review

The General Assembly has prescribed the standard of review for decisions by 

the PUC brought before this Court, under G.L. 1956 § 39-5-3:

“The findings of the commission on questions of fact shall 

be held to be prima facie true and as found by the 

commission, and the [S]upreme [C]ourt shall not exercise 

its independent judgment nor weigh conflicting evidence. 

An order or judgment of the commission made in the 

exercise of administrative discretion shall not be reversed 

unless the commission exceeded its authority or acted 

illegally, arbitrarily, or unreasonably.”

“[T]his Court reviews judgments and orders of the PUC solely to determine whether 

the PUC’s findings are lawful and reasonable, fairly and substantially supported by 

legal evidence, and sufficiently specific to enable us to ascertain if the evidence upon 

which the PUC based its findings reasonably supports the result.” In re A & R Marine 

Corp., 199 A.3d 533, 537 (R.I. 2019) (brackets omitted) (quoting Narragansett 

Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 773 A.2d 237, 240 (R.I. 2001)).

“[P]ure questions of law, including statutory interpretations, decided by the 

[PUC] are reviewed de novo by this Court.” In re Proposed Town of New Shoreham 

Project, 25 A.3d 482, 504 (R.I. 2011). “It is well settled that when the statutory 

language is clear and unambiguous, we give the words their plain and ordinary 

meaning.” In re Estate of Cardiff, 266 A.3d 1217, 1219 (R.I. 2022) (quoting Butler 

v. Gavek, 245 A.3d 750, 754 (R.I. 2021)). “It is only when confronted with an 
- 15 -

unclear or ambiguous statutory provision that this Court will examine the statute in 

its entirety to discern the legislative intent and purpose behind the provision.” 

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Kaya, 947 A.2d 869, 872 (R.I. 2008) (quoting 

State v. LaRoche, 925 A.2d 885, 887 (R.I. 2007)).

The PUC decision and judgment at issue here is one of statutory 

interpretation; we, therefore, proceed with our review de novo.

III

Discussion

This is not the first time that the Block Island wind project has reached this 

Court. In 2011, in In re Proposed Town of New Shoreham Project, we dealt with a 

dispute concerning the power purchase agreement (PPA) between the electric 

distribution company, National Grid, and the wind farm developer, Deepwater. In re 

Proposed Town of New Shoreham Project, 25 A.3d at 485-86. Our decision in that 

case also recounted a thorough history of the project, its inception in the General 

Assembly, and its previous proceedings before the PUC. Id. at 486-504.8

Our discussion here pertains only to the narrow question on which BIPCo

seeks review: Does the phrase “related facilities,” under § 39-26.1-7(f), cover 

BIPCo’s interconnection facilities and backup transformer such that those costs must 

8 We encourage the curious reader to review the In re Proposed Town of New 

Shoreham Project, 25 A.3d 482 (R.I. 2011), opinion for a more exhaustive 

background on the project.
- 16 -

be socialized across all Rhode Island ratepayers? This is a question of statutory 

interpretation.

The parties advocate for two opposing interpretations of “related facilities” 

under § 39-26.1-7(f), National Grid advancing a narrower definition and BIPCo a 

broader one. The PUC decided in favor of National Grid, ruling that “related 

facilities” must be narrowly construed to encompass only the equipment and assets 

National Grid had the option to purchase from the developer—Deepwater—as part 

of the transmission cable project. See § 39-26.1-7(f). On the contrary, BIPCo

implores this Court to read the statute as a whole and hold that, as a matter of law, 

“related facilities” must include its interconnection facilities and backup 

transformer.

“It is well settled that when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, 

we give the words their plain and ordinary meaning.” Butler, 245 A.3d at 754 

(quoting Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Providence Business Loan Fund, Inc., 200 

A.3d 153, 157 (R.I. 2019)). Further, “when we examine an unambiguous statute, 

there is no room for statutory construction and we must apply the statute as written.” 

Morel v. Napolitano, 64 A.3d 1176, 1179 (R.I. 2013) (quoting Mutual Development 

Corp. v. Ward Fisher & Co., LLP, 47 A.3d 319, 328 (R.I. 2012)).

The Legislature does not define or itemize “related facilities” in section (f), 

nor does the term possess any existing meaning in our caselaw to guide this Court’s 
- 17 -

understanding of its plain and ordinary meaning. Section 39-26.1-7(f); see Jerome

v. Probate Court of Town of Barrington, 922 A.2d 119, 123 (R.I. 2007) (holding that 

the terms “encumbrance” and “lien” were not ambiguous because, even though 

undefined in the statute, these terms “have a particular meaning in our law”). 

However, even though the Legislature did not define the term “related facilities,” it 

did qualify it in a way that extinguishes any ambiguity. See Freepoint Solar LLC v. 

Richmond Zoning Board of Review, 274 A.3d 1, 6 (R.I. 2022) (reasoning that “where 

the Legislature has not defined or qualified the words used within the statute” it is 

“particularly true” that we must give clear and unambiguous language its plain and 

ordinary meaning) (emphasis added) (quoting Drs. Pass and Bertherman, Inc. v. 

Neighborhood Health Plan of Rhode Island, 31 A.3d 1263, 1269 (R.I. 2011)).

“Related facilities” is mentioned three times in § 39-26.1-7(f), each time in 

conjunction with the transmission cable.

First: “The electric distribution company may elect to purchase the 

transmission cable and related facilities from the developer or an affiliate of the 

developer, pursuant to the terms of a transmission facility’s purchase agreement[.]” 

Section 39-26.1-7(f) (emphasis added).

Second: “Once written consent is provided, the electric distribution company 

and its transmission affiliate are authorized to make a filing with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission to put into effect transmission rates to recover all of the 
- 18 -

costs associated with the purchase of the transmission cable and related facilities

and the annual operation and maintenance.” Section 39-26.1-7(f) (emphasis added).

Third: “The division shall support transmission rates and conditions that allow 

for the costs related to the transmission cable and related facilities to be charged in 

transmission rates in a manner that socializes the costs throughout Rhode Island.” 

Section 39-26.1-7(f) (emphasis added).

Observing these three uses of “related facilities,” National Grid insists that the 

phrase is clear and unambiguous. Looking to the first use, National Grid argues that 

“related facilities” refers to the transmission cable project exclusively as National 

Grid acquired the project from the developer. Moreover, because the developer 

never owned BIPCo’s interconnection facilities, National Grid contends, those 

facilities cannot possibly be related to the transmission cable project optioned from 

Deepwater.

As to the second use, National Grid contends that “related facilities” covers 

only the infrastructure for which “the electric distribution company and its 

transmission affiliate” would seek reimbursement through transmission rates filed 

with FERC. Section 39-26.1-7(f). National Grid also emphasizes that section (f) 

never mentions the words interconnection facilities or transformer. Such glaring 

omissions must, National Grid argues, signal that the Legislature never intended for 

BIPCo’s interconnection to be socialized.
- 19 -

And finally, as to the third use, National Grid simply asserts that if the 

Legislature had intended to socialize all costs associated with the project, including

those for BIPCo’s interconnection, it would have written that into the statute.

BIPCo, meanwhile, grounds its argument in a more holistic reading of the 

statute. BIPCo maintains that, because a topline priority of the enabling act is to 

“provide the town of New Shoreham with an electrical connection to the mainland,” 

any infrastructure facilitating that connection must be, at minimum, “related” to the 

transmission cable. Section 39-26.1-7(a). Removing the interconnection and backup 

transformer from the “related facilities” costs socialized to all Rhode Islanders 

defeats and frustrates the fundamental purpose of the act, according to BIPCo.

Considering these arguments, the PUC based its final decision on National 

Grid’s first argument, concurring that “related facilities” encompasses only the 

facilities necessary to complete the wind farm as acquired from Deepwater. The 

PUC ruled, “[I]t is clear from the text of the statute that the ‘related facilities’ 

associated with the ‘transmission cable’ that National Grid was permitted to 

purchase from the ‘developer or affiliate of the developer’ includes only those 

facilities necessary to serve the developer’s project, the Block Island Wind Farm.”

Having reviewed the matter de novo, we agree with the PUC’s decision. See 

In re Narragansett Electric Company, 276 A.3d 363, 371 (R.I. 2022). Upon each

use of the term “related facilities,” the Legislature coupled it with the conjunctive 
- 20 -

connector “and” along with “the transmission cable.” See § 39-26.1-7(f). Reading 

section (f) according to this plain construction, “related facilities” clearly refers only 

to those facilities directly involved with the transmission cable project as National 

Grid purchased it from Deepwater. Purely as a matter of grammar, therefore, the 

language does not arouse any hint of ambiguity.

We also acknowledge that this reading of section (f) aligns with this Court’s

previous analysis of the enabling act in In re Proposed Town of New Shoreham 

Project. In re Proposed Town of New Shoreham Project, 25 A.3d at 509. In that 

case, we drew a distinction between the Town of New Shoreham Project, generally, 

and the transmission cable project, specifically. See id. (noting that § 39-26.1-7(f) 

“refer[s] to National Grid’s optional participation in the ‘transmission cable project’” 

and that § 39-26.1-7(g) “distinguish[es] the ‘transmission cable project’ from ‘the 

Town of New Shoreham Project’”).9 We further opined that “the ‘Town of New 

9 Section (g) of the enabling act reads, in relevant part:

“Any charges incurred by [BIPCo] * * * in implementing 

this section * * * shall be recovered annually in rates 

through a fully reconciling rate adjustment, subject to 

approval by the commission. If the electric distribution 

company owns * * * the transmission cable project, 

pursuant to section (f) of this section, the provisions of 

§ 39-26.1-4 shall not apply to the cable cost portion of the 

town of New Shoreham project.” Section 39-26.1-7(g).

National Grid argues that any cost-recovery options available to BIPCo are 

contemplated in section (g), negating any claims it may seek under section (f). This 

argument does not impact our analysis as we find the language in section (f) to be 
- 21 -

Shoreham Project’ was the umbrella project over which the contract for the purchase 

of renewable energy and the ‘transmission cable project’ were integral, but not 

necessarily simultaneous parts.” Id. at 491. We further stated that “the general policy 

goals for the Town of New Shoreham Project” do not “create an express mandate” 

for each of its composite parts, including the transmission cable project. Id. at 509-10

(rejecting the notion that section (a)’s policy goals informed the requirements for the 

2010 PPA because “§ 39-26.1-7(a)’s policy intention * * * of interconnecting Block 

Island [was] directed at the ‘Town of New Shoreham project’ to ‘effectuate’”).

BIPCo’s attempt to use the section (a) policy goals to graft new language onto 

section (f)—like “interconnection” and “transformer”—defies this Court’s explicit 

disaggregation of the Town of New Shoreham Project from the transmission cable 

project. Section (f) covers the transmission cable project only, which need not 

advance the general policy goals espoused in section (a). See In re Proposed Town 

of New Shoreham Project, 25 A.3d at 509 (admonishing the petitioners for 

“cherrypick[ing] and then cobbl[ing] together the overarching policy goals for the 

Town of New Shoreham Project to form what they allege is a * * * mandate for the 

2010 PPA”). BIPCo misunderstands the framework of the enabling act with its

contention that the project’s goal in section (a) to “provide the town of New 

unambiguous and exclusive of BIPCo’s interconnection costs, regardless of section 

(g).
- 22 -

Shoreham with an electrical connection to the mainland” must inform the meaning 

of “related facilities” as it appears in section (f). Sections 39-26.1-7(a), (f). That is 

not what this Court held in In re Proposed Town of New Shoreham Project and it is 

not what a plain and ordinary reading of the statutory language demands.

Noting that “we accord great deference to the PUC[] * * * and [that] we will 

not disturb an order unless the PUC ‘clearly * * * acts illegally, arbitrarily, or 

unreasonably[,]’” we observe no grounds to overturn the PUC’s decision. In re Kent 

County Water Authority Change Rate Schedules, 996 A.2d 123, 128 (R.I. 2010) 

(quoting Narragansett Electric Co., 773 A.2d at 240). We hold that “related 

facilities” clearly and unambiguously excludes the costs of BIPCo’s interconnection

facilities and backup transformer. See In re A & R Marine Corp., 199 A.3d at 537. 

As such, we affirm the PUC’s decision in favor of National Grid.

10

IV

Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the decision and judgment of the PUC. 

We remand the record to the PUC with our decision endorsed thereon.

10 Given our affirmance of the PUC’s definition of “related facilities,” no conflict 

exists between section (f) of the enabling act and the terms of the ISO-NE tariff. The 

ISO-NE tariff, Schedule 21-NEP, incorporates BIPCo’s interconnection and backup 

transformer as DAF charges owed by BIPCo and its ratepayers. This scheme is not 

at odds with the cost allocation structure established in either section (f) or (g) of the 

enabling act. Absent any conflict, we need not reach the parties’ arguments as to the 

tariff or preemption of FERC’s plenary authority.
SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE

Licht Judicial Complex

250 Benefit Street

Providence, RI 02903

OPINION COVER SHEET

Title of Case In re Block Island Power Company 

Petition for Declaratory Judgment.

Case Number No. 2020-115-M.P.

(Docket No. 4688)

Date Opinion Filed February 10, 2023

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, Long, 

JJ.

Written By Chief Justice Paul A. Suttell

Source of Appeal The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission

Judicial Officer from Lower Court N/A

Attorney(s) on Appeal

For Petitioner:

Leah J. Donaldson, Esq.

For Respondent:

Tiffany A. Parenteau, Esq.

Christine E. Dieter, Esq.