Central Maine Power Company v. Public Utilities Commission
2014 ME 56
| Me. | 2014Background
- CMP misallocated about $2.6 million in customer deposits from 2008–2010 from T&D to standard-offer receivables.
- Maine Law reshaped electric industry by separating generation from transmission and delivery (T&D) and implementing standard-offer service.
- T&D utilities can collect deposits; deposits based on two-highest-billing-period rule for residential, and similarly for nonresidential.
- CMP used a four-bucket system for debts and initially followed a rule allowing limited buckets for partial payments, later changed by the Commission.
- In 2009 the Commission ordered only prospective use of unlimited buckets for open accounts; deposits on closed, past-due accounts weren’t reexamined at that time.
- The 2010–2012 proceedings led the Commission to reallocate deposits between standard-offer and T&D receivables to correct misallocation and affect the adder in future rates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deposit rule permits two components in a single deposit | CMP argued statutes/regulations ambiguous; sought two-deposit interpretation | Commission held deposits are inseparable single amount | Ambiguity existed; deposits treated as two components and allocated by age |
| Whether the interpretation is retroactive and fair notice | CMP lacked fair notice of new interpretation; retroactive effect improper | Interpretation was not retroactive ratemaking and fair notice adequate | Not retroactive ratemaking; CMP had notice through prior rule changes and ongoing proceedings |
| Whether the adjustment constitutes retroactive ratemaking or an accounting correction | Adjustment functioned as penalty-like retroactive ratemaking | Adjustment ensures proper future adder calculation; not a rate reset | Not retroactive ratemaking; an accounting correction to correct misallocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 153 Me. 228 (Me. 1957) (prudence standard and deference to utility managers)
- Fryeburg Health Care Ctr. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 1999 ME 122 (Me. 1999) (agency interpretation reviewed for error with deference)
- State v. McCurdy, 2010 ME 137 (Me. 2010) (due process clarity in regulated activities)
- First Hartford Corp. v. Cent. Me. Power Co., 425 A.2d 174 (Me. 1981) (prospective rate regulation and prevention of retroactive relief)
- Pub. Advocate v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 1998 ME 218 (Me. 1998) (no retroactive rate relief; notice considerations)