Bruce D. Taylor v. Public Utilities Commission, 138 A.3d 1214

Background

Fryeburg Water Company (FWC) sought Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approval to enter a 25‑year agreement (with renewals) leasing a well site and selling a minimum amount of water to Nestlé Waters North America (NWNA); NWNA would pay fixed rent plus water at the Commission tariff rate.
The agreement dedicated Well #1 to NWNA’s exclusive use but allowed FWC to suspend NWNA’s withdrawals to protect customer supply or comply with environmental rules; NWNA agreed to seek additional water sources outside the watershed for FWC/customers.
PUC opened an adjudicatory proceeding; Bruce D. Taylor and Food & Water Watch (FWW) intervened and challenged the agreement on charter, statutory, and procedural grounds; a subpoena to NWNA was vacated as untimely.
PUC conditionally approved the agreement in November 2014 after removing an exclusivity provision that violated 35‑A M.R.S. § 703(1). Temporary commissioners were appointed to achieve a quorum.
Taylor appealed, claiming the agreement exceeded FWC’s charter, violated statutory requirements (tariff/special contract and lease approval statutes), improperly limited future Commission oversight, and that PUC abused procedure in vacating the subpoena and using temporary commissioners.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the agreement exceeds FWC’s charter authority	Taylor: Charter only authorizes supplying "public customers" for utility service and forbids bulk removal, special terms, or sale of untreated water	PUC/FWC: Charter language is broad (supply to Fryeburg and "vicinity" for "domestic and other purposes"); statute, not charter, governs powers; no plain charter prohibition	Court: Charter language does not unambiguously prohibit the agreement; PUC’s interpretation reasonable — no violation.
Whether the contract violates tariff/special‑contract statutes (35‑A §§ 309, 702–703)	Taylor: Agreement could give NWNA a de facto rate benefit (untreated water at tariff or pay minimum while taking less)	PUC: NWNA will pay at least the tariff; statutes prohibit rates below tariff or undue preference; special contracts are permissible with PUC approval	Court: PUC reasonably concluded no rate benefit or unlawful preference; approval consistent with statutes.
Whether lease of utility property required PUC authorization under § 1101 ("necessary or useful" vs. "materially affect")	Taylor: Lease of a well in same aquifer could materially affect FWC’s ability to serve customers and thus needs PUC authorization under prudence/reasonableness standard	PUC: Although property is "necessary or useful," the lease will not "materially affect" service because monitoring and shut‑off protections (no net harm) protect customers; §1101 does not mandate a particular standard	Court: PUC reasonably applied a "no net harm" standard and did not abuse discretion in finding no material effect.
Procedural challenges (subpoena vacatur; temporary commissioners; future rate‑setting restraint)	Taylor: PUC erred in vacating subpoena, improperly used temporary commissioners, and the agreement improperly restrains PUC’s future rate‑setting	PUC/FWC: Subpoena untimely/overbroad; statute allows temporary commissioners to ensure quorum; agreement preserves tariff adjustments by PUC	Court: PUC acted within its procedural authority; temporary commissioners do not reduce judicial deference; agreement does not constrain future Commission rate authority.

Key Cases Cited

Cent. Me. Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 90 A.3d 451 (Maine 2014) (standard of review and deference to agency statutory interpretation)
Office of the Pub. Advocate v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 122 A.3d 959 (Maine 2015) (deference to Commission interpretations of statutes it administers)
S.D. Warren Co. v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 868 A.2d 210 (Maine 2005) (agency deference unaffected by individual decisionmakers’ backgrounds)
Mar. Energy v. Fund Ins. Review Bd., 767 A.2d 812 (Maine 2001) (same point on applying deference to agency decisions)