Court Opinion

ID: 9962260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 14:07:53.409789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:10.940294
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
             APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

                                  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                  APPELLATE DIVISION
                                  DOCKET NO. A-2232-22

IN THE MATTER OF THE                        APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

COMPETITIVE SOLAR                                  April 23, 2024
INCENTIVE ("CSI") PROGRAM                       APPELLATE DIVISION
PURSUANT TO P.L. 2021, C.169.
______________________________

          Submitted April 15, 2024 – Decided April 23, 2024

          Before Judges Sabatino, Mawla, and Vinci.

          On appeal from the New Jersey Board of Public
          Utilities, Docket No. QO21101186.

          Bevan, Mosca & Giuditta, PC, attorneys for appellant
          Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition (William
          K. Mosca, Jr., and Jennifer McCave, on the briefs).

          Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
          respondent New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
          (Donna Sue Arons, Assistant Attorney General, of
          counsel; Brandon Cole Simmons, Deputy Attorney
          General, on the brief).

          Brian O. Lipman, Director, Division of Rate Counsel,
          attorney for respondent New Jersey Division of Rate
          Counsel (Sarah H. Steindel, Assistant Deputy Rate
          Counsel, on the brief).

    The opinion of the court was delivered by

MAWLA, J.A.D.
      Appellant Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition (MAREC) appeals

from a February 17, 2023 final agency decision by the New Jersey Board of

Public Utilities denying reconsideration of the Board's order establishing siting

requirements for its Competitive Solar Incentive (CSI) program, pursuant to

the Solar Act of 2021, N.J.S.A. 48:3-114 to -120. We affirm.

      On June 9, 2021, Governor Phil Murphy signed the Act to incentivize

increased solar development in New Jersey. The Act directs the Board to

create a solar facilities program "with administratively set incentive values,

and a solicitation process for awarding contracts for grid supply solar facilities

and net metered solar facilities greater than five megawatts."                In re

Competitive Solar Incentive ("CSI") Program, No. QO21101186, 2022 N.J.

PUC LEXIS 367, at 13-14 (Bd. of Pub. Utils. Dec. 7, 2022). See also N.J.S.A.

48:3-114.

      The Legislature codified its findings and declarations as well as the

goals of the Act, namely: (1) achieving fifty percent of the State's electricity

supply from renewable energy by 2030; and (2) developing a "grid supply

solar . . . directed toward marginal land and the built environment" and "a

coordinated land use policy for grid supply solar siting . . . to affordably

expand      New   Jersey's   commitment     to   renewable   energy   while     not

                                                                           A-2232-22
                                        2
compromising the State's commitment to preserving and protecting open space

and farmland." N.J.S.A. 48:3-114(a), (c).

      Pursuant to this authority, the Board began to develop the CSI program,

and as part of the process worked with the New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP), the Department of Agriculture, and the State

Agriculture Development Committee (SADC) to issue recommendations and a

straw proposal on siting requirements. The Board retained an expert, engaged

in "[four] years of extensive stakeholder engagement," and solicited comments

from stakeholders regarding the siting straw. The process culminated in the

issuance of a December 7, 2022 order that launched the CSI Program. The

order contained several staff recommendations regarding the CSI Program

design, registration, construction, and an extensive discussion regarding siting,

which the Board adopted.

      At the outset, the December 2022 order noted the Act required it to

balance the need for developing "large-scale grid supply solar development"

with the "risk of unintended impacts to vulnerable farmland and open space,

which is already under significant development pressure." The Act "directed

the Board to 'minimize, as much as practicable, potential adverse

environmental impacts[,]' and lays out specific siting criteria to be applied to

all . . . 'CSI-eligible facilities.'" The Board's order noted:

                                                                          A-2232-22
                                          3
             The siting criteria reflect where it is permissible for
             solar projects to be located, where solar construction
             is subject to restrictions, and where it is prohibited.
             For some prohibited locations, the Act allows the
             Board to grant a waiver if it deems . . . the project to
             be in the public interest.

      The siting criteria for solar projects are codified in N.J.S.A. 48:3-119.

N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(c) enumerates seven categories of land where solar facilities

shall not be sited and in relevant part states:

                   Unless authorized pursuant to subsection f. of
             this section, a grid supply solar facility or a net
             metered solar facility greater than five megawatts in
             size shall not be sited on:

                   ....

                   (7) prime agricultural soils and soils of
                   Statewide importance, as identified by the
                   United States Department of Agriculture's
                   Natural Resources Conservation Service, which
                   are located in Agricultural Development Areas
                   certified by the [SADC], in excess of the
                   Statewide threshold of 2.5[%] of such soils
                   established by paragraph (1) of subsection d. of
                   this section.

             [N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(c)(7) (emphasis added).]

      N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(d)(1) states:

                   A grid supply solar facility or a net metered
             solar facility greater than five megawatts in size sited
             on prime agricultural soils or soils of Statewide
             importance, as identified by the United States
             Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
             Conservation Service, which are located in

                                                                        A-2232-22
                                         4
             Agricultural Development Areas certified by the
             [SADC], shall not require a waiver pursuant to
             subsection f. of this section until the [B]oard
             determines, pursuant to paragraph (2) of this
             subsection, that 2.5[%] of such lands in the State have
             been approved by the [B]oard pursuant to P.L.2021,
             c.169 (C.48:3-114 et al.) to be utilized by a grid
             supply solar facility or a net metered solar facility
             greater than five megawatts in size. After the [B]oard
             makes this determination, a grid supply solar facility
             or a net metered solar facility greater than five
             megawatts in size shall not be sited on prime
             agricultural soils or soils of Statewide importance, as
             identified by the United States Department of
             Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service,
             which are located in Agricultural Development Areas
             certified by the [SADC], unless authorized pursuant to
             subsection f. of this section.

             [Emphasis added.]

      N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f) describes the waiver process, and as regards the

issues raised here, states:

                   A developer may petition the [B]oard for a
             waiver to site a solar power electric generation facility
             in an area proscribed by subsection c. of this
             section. . . . However, in no case shall the projects
             approved by the [B]oard pursuant to this section
             occupy more than [5%] of the unpreserved land
             containing prime agricultural soils and soils of
             Statewide importance, as identified by the United
             States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
             Conservation Service, located within any county's
             designated Agricultural Development Area, as
             determined by the [SADC].

             [Emphasis added.]

                                                                         A-2232-22
                                        5
      The Board's December 2022 order noted N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(d)(1) and

N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f) both "specify restrictions for the development of CSI-

eligible facilities on specific agricultural land." However, it concluded CSI-

eligible facilities should "not be allowed to register with the Board and pursue

development if the aggregate solar development on covered agricultural

lands[1] exceeds 2.5% of such lands Statewide." Further, N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f)

should "be implemented independently and . . . CSI-eligible facilities shall not

be allowed to register with the Board if the aggregate solar development on

unpreserved covered agricultural land within a specific county exceeds 5% of

such lands in the county." The Board concluded "the [S]tatewide cap is . . . to

be calculated by looking at preserved and unpreserved farmland, while the

per[]county cap is proposed to be calculated on the basis of unpreserved

farmland only."

      The Board's order noted that in consultation with other State agencies, it

could consider "petitions for waivers that seek construction of CSI-eligible

facilities . . . in excess of the 2.5% Statewide threshold for solar development

on covered agricultural land." However, the Act "does not permit waivers of

1
   "Covered agricultural lands" include unpreserved prime agricultural soils
and soils of Statewide importance located in agricultural development areas.
In re Competitive Solar Incentive ("CSI") Program, No. QO21101186, 2022
N.J. PUC LEXIS 367, at 9 (Bd. of Pub. Utils. Dec. 7, 2022).

                                                                         A-2232-22
                                       6
the 5% per[]county limit.      N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f)."     It concluded "projects

proposed to be constructed on preserved farmland, or exceeding the 5% county

concentration limit, are not eligible for a waiver" and should be denied.

      MAREC moved for reconsideration, and relevant to the issues raised on

this appeal, argued the Board misinterpreted the controlling statutory

limitations on the siting of solar projects on covered agricultural lands. It

claimed the Board's order misread the plain language of N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f),

because that statute states the 5% per county limit only applied to solar

projects that sought a waiver to be sited on lands restricted under N.J.S.A.

48:3-119(c), including lands exceeding the 2.5% Statewide limit. MAREC

argued the 2.5% Statewide limit governed all projects. Therefore, a project

could exceed the 5% county limit if it does not exceed the 2.5% Statewide

limit and is not built on the lands proscribed in N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(c). MAREC

claimed the legislative history also supported its reading of the Act.

      The Board was unpersuaded. It held "[a]ll CSI-Eligible Facilities must

meet the siting criteria established pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f)]. . . . This

ensures that the State's interest in preserving open space and agricultural lands

will be applied to all solar projects, on an equal basis." The Board cited the

"in no case" portion of N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f), and concluded the statute

prohibits "projects that would result in excess of 5% of covered agricultural

                                                                            A-2232-22
                                        7
lands in a particular county, which includes both through the waiver process as

well as the underlying requirement."           It found N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f)'s

"restrict[ion on] development . . . serves to underscore the Legislature's goal of

ensuring that encouraging large scale solar development does not . . .

undermine the State's agricultural industry and to cabin the Board's use of the

waiver process."

      The Board reiterated its finding from the December 2022 order that "the

5% county concentration limit is a separately enforceable statutory

requirement." It pointed out the Act "specifically excludes preserved farmland

from the . . . 5[%] [c]ounty [c]oncentration [l]imit, but does not exclude

preserved land in the . . . 2.5[%] Statewide threshold. . . . In both cases, the

statute directed the Board to limit solar development to 5[%] of covered

agricultural lands." The Board concluded "its interpretation of these statutory

provisions struck an appropriate balance between facilitating development and

safeguarding New Jersey's agricultural heritage and open space."

                                        I.

      On appeal, MAREC repeats its argument the 5% county limit in N.J.S.A.

48:3-119(f) only applies when a project would exceed the 2.5% Statewide limit

or is subject to the other limiting criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 48:3 -119(c). In

other words, if a project does not exceed the 2.5% Statewide limit and will not

                                                                            A-2232-22
                                        8
be built on lands proscribed by N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(c), MAREC asserts "it can

be built on land containing prime agricultural soils and soils of Statewide

importance regardless of whether it will exceed the 5% county concentration

limit."

      MAREC claims the plain reading of the statute supports its interpretation

because the phrase "approved by the Board" in N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f) refers to

the waiver process, which it is not seeking. Further, the December 2022 order

confirms this interpretation because it provides only projects seeking a waiver

will need affirmative siting approval from the Board, and the tracking and

recording of the Statewide and county limits will occur annually, instead of on

an individual project basis.

      MAREC also points to the structure of the statute.            Although it

acknowledges N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f) states, "in no case shall the projects

approved . . . pursuant to this section" exceed the 5% county limit, suggesting

the limit is not confined to the waiver process described in N.J.S.A. 48:3 -

119(f), it asserts the word "section" in that passage is a "mere scrivener's

error." It notes the 2.5% Statewide limit and the 5% county limit reside in

separate sections. Therefore, if the Legislature had intended for the 5% county

limit to serve as an additional limitation on all CSI-eligible projects (not just

those seeking a waiver) it would have been enumerated in N.J.S.A. 48:3-

                                                                          A-2232-22
                                       9
119(c) or (e). Further, the Legislature's use of the words "after" and "unless"

in N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(d)(1) as in: "After the [B]oard makes this determination,

a [solar facility] . . . shall not be sited on [farmlands] . . . unless authorized

pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f)]" indicate the 2.5% Statewide limit is a

condition precedent to applying the 5% county limit.

      MAREC argues the legislative history also supports its interpretation of

the statute.    It cites the Assembly and Senate committee statements

accompanying passage of the Act, both of which state: "After the 2.5[%]

threshold is reached, a waiver would be required for the remaining 2.5[%] of

the lands with agricultural soils until the [5%] cap on the use of lands with

those soils for solar facilities is reached." Assemb. Budget Comm. Statement

to A. 4554, at 3 (June 22, 2021); S. Budget & Appropriations Comm.

Statement to S. 2605, at 3 (June 22, 2021). MAREC avers these statements are

dispositive because the earliest version of the bill required waivers for all CSI-

eligible projects sited on covered agricultural lands and the 5% county

concentration limit. The bill was then revised to allow projects on covered

agricultural lands up to the 2.5% Statewide limit without a waiver. Therefore,

because this change made the statute less restrictive on solar development of

covered agricultural lands, the statute should be construed liberally.

                                                                           A-2232-22
                                       10
      We will ordinarily defer to an agency's reasonable construction of

statutes it is charged with implementing. In re Implementation of L. 2012, C.

24, N.J.S.A. 48:3-87(t), 443 N.J. Super. 73, 78 (App. Div. 2015) (citing In re

Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co.'s Rate Unbundling, 167 N.J. 377, 384 (2001)).

However, we are not bound to an agency's interpretation of a statute and our

review in this regard is always de novo. L.A. v. Bd. of Educ. of Trenton,

Mercer Cty., 221 N.J. 192, 204 (2015).

                                        II.

      "The goal in cases of statutory construction is . . . to seek and give effect

to the Legislature's intent." Nw. Bergen Cnty. Utils. Auth. v. Donovan, 226

N.J. 432, 443-44 (2016). "[T]he best indicator of that intent is the statutory

language." DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005). "'Only if there is

ambiguity in the statutory language will we turn to extrinsic evidence,'

including legislative history."    In re Implementation of L. 2018, C. 16

Regarding the Establishment of Zero Emission Certificate Program for Eligible

Nuclear Power Plants, 467 N.J. Super. 154, 179 (2021) (quoting Richardson v.

Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 192 N.J. 189, 195-96 (2007)).

      "We ascribe to the statutory words their ordinary meaning and

significance . . . ." DiProspero, 183 N.J. at 492. "We generally do not assume

the Legislature intended anything other than the plain language of the statute."

                                                                            A-2232-22
                                        11
State v. Burnham, 474 N.J. Super. 226, 231 (App. Div. 2022) (citing

Zabilowicz v. Kelsey, 200 N.J. 507, 517 (2009)). "The Legislature knows how

to draft a statute to achieve [a] result when it wishes to do so." Zabilowicz,

200 N.J. at 517.

      Our de novo review of the record convinces us N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f) is

unambiguous and the Board correctly interpreted the Act.        N.J.S.A. 48:3 -

119(f) clearly states "in no case shall the projects approved by the [B]oard

pursuant to this section occupy more than [5%] of the unpreserved land

containing prime agricultural soils and soils of Statewide importance . . .

located within any county's designated Agricultural Development Area . . . ."

The "section" referenced in N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f) intends all of N.J.S.A. 48:3-

119, not only subsection (f), which enumerates the waiver process. Therefore,

the plain and ordinary meaning of the text indicates the per county limit is not

eligible for the waiver process.

      MAREC presents no evidence to suggest the use of the term "section" is

a scrivener's error.    Indeed, the first sentence of N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f)

authorizes the waiver process for projects "proscribed by subsection c" and its

later emphasis that "in no case shall" projects be approved in violation of the

per county limit makes clear the limit is strict and unwaivable. The Statewide

                                                                         A-2232-22
                                      12
and the county limits are contained in separate subsections of N.J.S.A. 48:3 -

119, but they are not in separate sections of the Act.

      N.J.S.A. 48:3-119 repeatedly refers to its subsections and to the greater

span of N.J.S.A. 48:3-119 itself.      For example, it states:      "In addition to

implementing the provisions of subsections c. through f. of this section, the

siting criteria shall" follow certain guidelines. N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(b). N.J.S.A.

48:3-119(c)(7) provides:

             Unless authorized pursuant to subsection f. of this
             section, a grid supply solar facility or a net metered
             solar facility greater than five megawatts in size shall
             not be sited on . . . prime agricultural soils and soils of
             Statewide importance . . . in excess of the Statewide
             threshold of 2.5[%] of such soils established by
             paragraph (1) of subsection d. of this section.

And N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(g) states: "[T]he [B]oard . . . shall conduct a review of

the rules and regulations to assess program performance, identify problems,

and recommend changes to the siting criteria to better effectuate the policy

goals set forth in subsection a. of this section."

      Therefore, the Legislature's use of the term "section" in N.J.S.A. 48:3-

119(f) in discussing the per county limit was plainly intentional and not

scrivener's error. A contrary interpretation would undermine the Act's intent to

limit the adverse effects of solar projects on our State's natural resources. The

                                                                             A-2232-22
                                         13
proper statutory construction is that the per county limit is strict and

unwaivable.

         We also construe a statute's words "in context with related provisions so

as to give sense to the legislation as a whole." DiProspero, 183 N.J. at 492.

N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(d)(1) states solar projects "shall not require a waiver

pursuant to subsection f. of this section until the [B]oard determines, . . . that

2.5[%] of such lands in the State have been approved by the [B]oard." Yet, the

Legislature made no mention of the ability to seek a waiver of the 5% county

limit in N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f). Therefore, despite N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(d)(1)'s use

of the word "until," it is not reasonable to interpret the Statewide limit as a

precondition to applying the per county limit because it is a precondition for

the waiver process, which is not applicable to the per county limit. It is self -

evident the Legislature intended not to constrain solar development while the

Board was establishing the 2.5% Statewide benchmark. The Legislature could

do this because it put the 5% per county limit in place, thereby permitting

simultaneous solar development without detriment to a county's agricultural

lands.

         N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(d)(1) also states that "[a]fter the [B]oard" has

approved projects up to the Statewide limit, no more projects will be "sited on

prime agricultural soils or soils of Statewide importance . . . unless authorized

                                                                           A-2232-22
                                         14
pursuant to subsection f. of this section." MAREC suggests the use of "after"

and "unless" supports its argument, but this language does not indicate the per

county limit is subject to meeting the Statewide threshold because the per

county limit is unwaivable. The qualifiers, "until," "after," and "unless" relate

to preconditions for the waiver process itself, which does not apply to the

county limit.

      Notably, N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(d)(1) references N.J.S.A. 48:3-114, which

enumerates the goals of the Act. Interpreting the Act in the manner suggested

by MAREC would undermine the Legislature's intent that "[t]he development

of grid supply solar should be directed toward marginal land and the built

environment . . . [and] coordinat[ing] land use policy for grid supply solar

siting . . . to affordably expand New Jersey's commitment to renewable energy

while not compromising the State's commitment to preserving and protecting

open space and farmland." N.J.S.A. 48:3-114(c).

      Finally, "[a] court should not 'resort to extrinsic interpretative aids' when

'the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, and susceptible to only one

interpretation.'" DiProspero, 183 N.J. at 492 (quoting Lozano v. Frank DeLuca

Const., 178 N.J. 513, 522 (2004)). Because the plain language of the Act is

clear, we decline to interpret it using the legislative statements cited by

MAREC.

                                                                            A-2232-22
                                        15
      Even so, when the legislative history is taken in context, it does not

convince us of MAREC's viewpoint. Initially, we note the legislative history

reiterates the goal of solar development is to "minimize, as much as is

practicable, potential adverse environmental impacts."        S. Appropriations

Comm. Statement to S. 2605, at 4 (May 11, 2021).

      MAREC suggests the legislative history supports its interpretation of the

Act because the earliest version of the bill required waivers for all CSI-eligible

projects sited on covered agricultural lands and the final version only required

waivers after the 2.5% Statewide limit was reached.           However, in both

versions of the bill, the per county limit remained the same and was not subject

to the waiver process. S. 2605 § 6(e) (2021); S. 2605 § 6(f) (2021) (first

reprint).   Therefore, assuming consultation of the legislative history is

appropriate here, it only underscores the Board's finding the Statewide and

county limits are independent of one another.

      This is because the Statewide and the county limits do not contemplate

the same farmland. N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f) employs the "unpreserved" qualifier

for the county limit only, whereas the Statewide limit does not.             This

difference shows why reading the provisions separately is sensible; to do

otherwise could lead to up to 100% of a county's farmland with prime soils or

soils of Statewide importance being eligible for solar development because the

                                                                           A-2232-22
                                       16
2.5% Statewide limit has not yet been reached.       Indeed, according to the

Board's December 2022 order, the 2.5% Statewide threshold equaled 8,493

acres of the State's prime farmland soils and soils of Statewide importance.

The county with the greatest agricultural acreage equating 5% of the

development limit was Salem at 1,653 acres. Ignoring the 5% county limit, in

Salem County's case, and allowing development up to the Statewide limit,

would swallow the county's agricultural acreage. Interpreting the statute in

this manner leads to an absurd result, which we must avoid.

      Since 1867 New Jersey has been known as the Garden State because of

the State's farmlands and agricultural bounty. Manual of the Legislature of

New Jersey 13 (2021). In 2017, the Garden State moniker became the official

state slogan. A. 3437 (2017).

      According to the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, vegetable crops

produced in 2022 were valued at $240 million. 2023 N.J. Dep't of Agric. Ann.

Rep. 29. New Jersey is third in the nation for producing cranberries and bell

peppers, id. at 28, and "regularly among the top five producers" of blueberries,

tomatoes, and peaches, id. at 16. Together, New Jersey farms produced $1.1

billion in direct sales, had a $1.9 billion economic impact, and were

responsible for creating 22,772 jobs in 2020.      Farm Credit E., Ne. Econ.

Engine: Agric., Forest Prods., and Com. Fishing 15 (3d ed. 2020).

                                                                         A-2232-22
                                      17
      Fifteen percent of the State comprises farmland of one sort or another.

2022 USDA Census of Agric.: U.S. Summary & State Data 340. In 2022, the

United States Department of Agriculture recorded just over 700,000 acres of

farmland. Ibid. This figure represented an approximate 100,000-acre decline

from the farmland acreage recorded in 2007. 2017 USDA Census of Agric.:

U.S. Summary & State Data 7.

      The Act seeks to preserve these vital natural resources while

encouraging the likewise important and rising development of clean solar

energy. Our review of the record convinces us the Board's interpretation of the

Act justifiably balanced these important considerations in a manner faithful to

the statute's text.

      Affirmed.

                                                                        A-2232-22
                                      18