Conservation Law Foundation v. Public Utilities Commission
163 A.3d 132
| Me. | 2017Background
- Efficiency Maine Trust submitted its Third Triennial Plan (FY2017–2019) proposing measures to capture maximum achievable, cost-effective energy efficiency (MACE) and relied on the 2015 AESC report for avoided cost forecasts and a 4.36% discount rate.
- Commission staff’s bench analysis adjusted Trust assumptions, using more recent LEI June 2015 price forecasts and an 8.5% blended discount rate for ratepayer funds, producing lower avoided-cost benefits and a reduced budget.
- A multi-party stipulation adopting the bench analysis methodology (including LEI forecasts and the blended discount rate) was reached and signed by most parties; CLF and IECG opposed.
- The Public Utilities Commission approved the stipulation, finding the LEI forecasts and blended discount rate reasonable, that the statute permits considering gross and net savings as the Commission historically has, and that the natural gas approach better reflected recent market changes.
- Conservation Law Foundation appealed, arguing the Commission failed to (1) use regional “best practices” (AESC) for avoided-costs and discount rate, (2) treat MACE on a gross basis as required, and (3) identify/fund all cost‑effective natural gas MACE.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission violated the statute’s requirement to “make use of best practices across the region” in calculating avoided energy costs and selecting a discount rate | CLF: Commission must follow regional best practice (AESC) for avoided costs and discount rate; stipulation’s reliance on LEI and blended rate departs from statutory mandate | Commission: statute requires avoided-cost calculations be reasonable, based on sound evidence, and to make use of regional best practices — these can be weighed together; AESC is a methodology, not binding forecast; LEI reflects current market changes | The statute is ambiguous; Commission’s blended, multi-source approach was reasonable and entitled to deference; no statutory violation. |
| Whether the Commission must determine MACE using gross savings (distinct from net savings) | CLF: statute unambiguously requires separate determinations — MACE on a gross basis and then a separate funding/surcharge determination | Commission: statute codified prior approach — consider gross savings for MACE but screen measures funded by ratepayer dollars on a net basis to account for free-ridership/spillover | Statute ambiguous; Commission’s longstanding practice of determining benefit‑cost ratios on a net basis for ratepayer-funded measures while considering gross savings for MACE is reasonable. |
| Whether the Commission failed to identify and fund all cost-effective, reliable, achievable natural gas MACE | CLF: Commission wrongly relied on historic data and ignored the Trust’s 2014 study projecting greater gas MACE, so funding falls short of statutory mandate | Commission: the 2014 study was outdated and likely overstated savings given price and load changes; stipulation better reflects current market and provides adjustable annual funding | Commission’s technical judgment to rely on more current market-informed approach was reasonable; no abuse of discretion. |
| Standard of review for Commission’s statutory interpretations and technical determinations | CLF: Commission misapplied statutory mandates and abused discretion | Commission: interpretations are within its expertise and entitled to deference; record supports its technical choices | Court applies de novo ambiguity inquiry then defers to reasonable agency interpretation; here Commission decisions were reasonable and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cent. Me. Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 90 A.3d 451 (Me. 2014) (two-step review of agency statutory interpretation; deference to reasonable construction)
- Taylor v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 138 A.3d 1214 (Me. 2016) (review of Commission orders is highly deferential; overturn only for unreasonable, unjust, or unlawful conclusions)
- Office of the Pub. Advocate v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 816 A.2d 833 (Me. 2003) (agency statutory interpretation entitled to deference but reversible if it conflicts with legislative mandates)
- Houlton Water Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 87 A.3d 749 (Me. 2014) (deference to agency interpretation when statute is ambiguous)
- Blue Yonder, LLC v. State Tax Assessor, 17 A.3d 667 (Me. 2011) (statutory language must be given meaning; avoid rendering words superfluous)
- Competitive Energy Servs., LLC v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 818 A.2d 1039 (Me. 2003) (reject statutory constructions that create absurd or inconsistent results)
- Office of the Pub. Advocate v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 122 A.3d 959 (Me. 2015) (recognizing Commission’s discretion and technical expertise in energy matters)