Case Notes

• Publication year: 2021

CASE NOTES

Supreme Court

Labor

In the Matter of the Arb. Between United Pub. Workers and St. of Haw., Dep't of Transp., No. SCWC-16-0000666, May 21, 2021, (McKenna, J.). The Hawaii Supreme Court addressed whether the State of Hawaii ("State") "incurred" attorney's fees under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 658A-25 (2011) in a grievance arbitration when it was represented by an attorney employed by the State's Department of Attorney General. The State sought $20,044.49 in appellate attorney's fees and $35.20 in costs under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-25 as the "prevailing party" in an appeal of a grievance arbitration with the United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFLCIO. The ICA awarded costs but no attorney's fees, on the grounds the State "failed to demonstrate that it incurred, as an expense, liability, or legal obligation to pay, appellate attorney's fees[.]" The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the State "incurred" attorney's fees for the purposes of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-25 and therefore, granted the State's request for attorney's fees in the amount of $16,197.50.

Utilities

In the Matter of Hawaiian Electric Light Co., Inc., No. SCOT-20-0000569, May 24, 2021 (Eddins, J., with Wilson, J. concurring). Appellant Hu Honua Bioenergy, LLC ("Hu Honua") appealed the Public Utilities Commission's ("PUC") Order No. 37205, that denied a competitive bidding waiver to Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. ("HELCO"). Hu Honua also appealed the PUC's Order No. 37306, that denied Hu Honua's request for reconsideration of Order No. 37205. Because both Order No. 37205 and Order No. 37306 sprang from a misreading of the holding in Matter of Hawai'i Elec. Light Co., Inc., 145 Hawaii 1, 445 P.3d 673 (2019) ("HELCO I"), the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated them and remanded the case to the PUC for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the Hawaii Supreme Court's instructions in HELCO I.

[Page 26]

Wilson, J., concurred with the Majority's decision to remand to the Public Utilities Commission ("PUC"), and wrote to clarify that the Majority's decision gives discretion to the PUC to determine again whether a waiver of competitive bidding should be granted to Hawai'i Electric Light Company, Inc. ("HELCO"). Just as "the legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd result, and inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality [,]" so too should supreme court case law. Specifically, the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in Matter of Hawaii Elec. Light Co., 145 Hawaii 1, 445...