Interpreting “Consider” Under VCEA: Discretion and Non-Mandatory Findings in CPCN Proceedings

Introduction

In WVALDC v. State Corporation Commission, the Supreme Court of Virginia addressed the scope of the State Corporation Commission’s duty under Enactment Clause 7 of the Virginia Clean Economy Act (“VCEA”) and related provisions of the Commonwealth Clean Energy Policy (“CCEP”). The West Virginia & Appalachian Laborers’ District Council (“WVALDC”) challenged the Commission’s decision to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity (“CPCNs”) to Sycamore Cross Solar LLC (“Sycamore”) for a 240-megawatt solar facility. WVALDC argued that the Commission (1) failed to make specific findings on how the project would benefit each enumerated group in the VCEA and (2) abused its discretion by declining to impose a local-hiring condition on Sycamore. The Supreme Court affirmed, clarifying the meaning of “consider” under the VCEA and affirming the Commission’s broad discretion.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that:

Enactment Clause 7’s command that the Commission “consider” benefits to local workers, disadvantaged communities, veterans, and coalfield residents requires only that the Commission reflect on those factors—it does not mandate explicit written findings or conditions.
The Commission’s statement that it had “considered” the enumerated groups, coupled with citation to the Hearing Examiner’s findings and record evidence, satisfied the statutory requirement.
The Commission did not abuse its discretion by declining to impose a local-hiring requirement. No statute or precedent compelled such a condition, the economic analysis and witness testimony supporting “reasonable efforts” were credited, and imposing a binding hiring quota would be impracticable given the project timeline.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Court anchored its interpretation in settled principles of statutory construction:

Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. State Corp. Comm’n, 284 Va. 726, 738 (2012): When a statute’s language is unambiguous, courts give effect to its plain meaning.
Campbell v. Department of Forestry, 46 Va. App. 91, 103 (2005): A statutory command to “consider” factors does not require quantification or measurable weight but merely prohibits deeming them legally insignificant.
City of Alexandria v. State Corp. Comm’n, 296 Va. 79, 94 (2018): Courts defer to the Commission’s discretion absent an express statutory directive to the contrary.

These authorities underscore that the absence of specific statutory language—even where the legislature expressly imposes requirements elsewhere—signals intentional delegation of discretion.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in two main steps:

Statutory Interpretation of “Consider.” The Court concluded that “consider” means “to reflect on” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 483 (1993)). Nothing in Enactment Clause 7 or the CCEP commands written findings or mandatory conditions. By citing the Hearing Examiner’s report—including the economic analysis, testimony on local-hiring commitments, and the project’s non-location in disadvantaged or coalfield areas—the Commission satisfied the statutory command.
Discretion on Local-Hiring Conditions. The Court recognized the Commission’s expertise and broad authority to weigh economic development and job-creation objectives. Because no statute or prior decision mandated a local-hiring quota, and because the Commission found the applicant’s “reasonable efforts” credible, declining to impose binding hiring terms was a valid exercise of discretion.

3. Impact

This ruling has significant consequences for utility siting and renewable energy cases:

It clarifies that the Commission’s duty to “consider” statutorily enumerated benefits does not require burdensome formal findings or conditions unless expressly required by statute.
It reaffirms the Commission’s discretion in balancing policy objectives under the VCEA and CCEP, reducing the likelihood of third-party demands for mandatory hiring or other conditions absent clear legislative directives.
Developers and stakeholders can anticipate greater predictability: broad policy considerations will be addressed in aggregated findings, not compartmentalized mandates.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN).” Regulatory permissions issued by the Commission allowing utilities or project developers to build and operate energy facilities.
“Enactment Clause 7 of the VCEA.” A legislative directive that the Commission reflect on how renewable energy projects benefit specified groups (local workers, disadvantaged communities, veterans, coalfield residents).
“Discretionary Action.” Policy judgments left to the Commission’s expertise when statutes use terms such as “consider” or provide general objectives without detailed mandates.

Conclusion

WVALDC v. State Corporation Commission establishes that under the VCEA and the Commonwealth Clean Energy Policy, the Commission’s obligation to “consider” certain community benefits is satisfied by reflection on relevant evidence—written findings and mandatory conditions are unnecessary absent explicit statutory commands. Moreover, the Commission retains broad discretion in deciding whether to impose local-hiring requirements when approving renewable energy projects. This decision reinforces deference to the Commission’s expertise in balancing Virginia’s clean-energy goals with practical project considerations.