## Facts

- In 2008, Missouri voters approved a clean-energy initiative establishing renewable-energy goals and directing implementation through state law and regulation.
- The Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) adopted renewable-energy regulations addressing, among other topics, customer-owned renewable-energy systems. The regulations and their enabling statute required solar-energy systems to satisfy applicable safety, performance, interconnection, and reliability standards established by local code authorities.
- James and Frances Babb planned to install a residential solar-energy system on their home in the City of Clarkson Valley, Missouri.
- In 2011, the Babbs applied to the City for a standard building permit to construct their solar system.
- The Babbs’ initial proposal included 100 rooftop solar panels—more than any other city resident had installed—but otherwise complied with existing City ordinances.
- While the permit application was pending, the City’s Board of Aldermen enacted new ordinances that:
  - replaced the building-permit process with a special use permit (SUP) requirement that needed Board approval, and
  - imposed design specifications and general installation requirements for residential solar-energy systems.
- The Babbs applied for an SUP under the new ordinances.
- During proceedings before the City Planning and Zoning Commission, the Babbs modified their plan by reducing the rooftop panels from 100 to 42 and agreeing to place the remaining panels on freestanding poles.
- The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Babbs’ SUP application.
- The Board of Aldermen denied the Babbs’ SUP application without explanation.
- The Babbs sued the PSC, the City, the Board, and city officials, alleging the City’s solar ordinances conflicted with (and were preempted by) Missouri’s renewable-energy statutory scheme and the PSC’s regulations, and alleging the SUP denial was arbitrary and capricious.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment for the Babbs, declared the City’s ordinances void based on conflict with state law and PSC regulations, and ordered the City to issue a permit. When the City did not issue the permit, the Babbs built the system with the court’s authorization.
- After remaining claims were dismissed or otherwise resolved, the City and officials appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Missouri’s renewable-energy statutes and the PSC’s renewable-energy regulations conflict with and preempt the City’s ordinances requiring a discretionary SUP and imposing additional design and installation restrictions on residential solar systems.
2. Whether the Babbs’ suit was barred by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 89.110’s 30-day period for seeking review of zoning decisions, as the City argued the action was an untimely challenge to the Board’s denial.
3. Whether the Board of Aldermen’s denial of the Babbs’ SUP application, despite a favorable recommendation and revised plans, was arbitrary and capricious.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court agreed that the City’s solar ordinances conflicted with Missouri’s renewable-energy statutory and regulatory scheme and were therefore preempted and void.
- The court rejected the City’s argument that § 89.110 barred the lawsuit, reasoning that the Babbs’ action was not limited to review of an administrative zoning decision but also challenged the validity of the ordinances themselves.
- The court agreed that the Board’s unexplained denial of the SUP, after the Babbs revised their plan and received a favorable recommendation, lacked a rational basis in the record and was arbitrary and capricious.
- The court left in place the relief requiring the City to allow the solar installation to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Under Missouri conflict-preemption doctrine, a municipal ordinance is invalid if it conflicts with state law or stands as an obstacle to the operation of a state statutory and regulatory scheme.
- Where the state has established a regulatory framework for renewable energy through statute and PSC rules, local governments may enforce local code standards within the scope contemplated by the state framework (such as safety and related code requirements), but may not use zoning or permitting devices to impose conflicting barriers.
- A suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that attacks the validity of an ordinance as conflicting with state law is not necessarily confined to the short time limit and procedural path for judicial review of a single zoning decision under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 89.110.
- A permit denial may be set aside as arbitrary and capricious when the decision lacks a reasoned basis tied to the governing standards and the record, including when a board denies an application without explanation after the applicant has made substantial revisions and obtained favorable recommendations.

## Conclusion

In *Babb v. Missouri Public Service Commission*, the Missouri Court of Appeals held that Clarkson Valley’s solar-specific zoning and permitting scheme conflicted with Missouri’s renewable-energy law and the PSC’s implementing regulations, making the local ordinances void, and it upheld relief for the homeowners where the City’s Board denied a recommended special use permit without an explained, record-based rationale.


Babb v. Missouri Public Service Commission, 414 S.W.3d 64 (2013)