Houlton Water Company v. Public Utilities Commission
2014 ME 38
| Me. | 2014Background
- Maine’s Electric Industry Restructuring Act split generation from transmission and distribution to foster competition in generation.
- T&D utilities Bangor Hydro-Electric and Maine Public Service (MPS) sought reorganization to align with Emera, Inc., engaging with generation assets and wind projects.
- Emera would gain more ownership in Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. (APUC) and form JV Holdco with First Wind Holdings, creating generation assets in Maine.
- JV Holdco would be jointly owned by Emera-Northeast Wind and First Wind, with Emera financing substantial wind projects in Maine, Vermont, and New York.
- The Commission approved the reorganizations with numerous conditions, concluding they would benefit ratepayers, while intervenors raised concerns about competition and market fairness.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the Commission’s decision and remanded for further proceedings applying a clarified interpretation of 35-A M.R.S. § 3204(5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 3204(5) ban affiliate-type ownership between T&D utilities and generation assets? | Intervenors contend § 3204(5) expressly prohibits such affiliations. | Commission read § 3204(5) as not explicitly prohibiting affiliates. | No blanket prohibition; statute ambiguous and must be interpreted to prohibit certain financial interests. |
| Must a T&D utility have control of generation assets to have a “financial interest” under § 3204(5)? | Affiliates imply ownership or control, so restrictions apply. | Financial interest requires control over generation assets. | A T&D utility may have a prohibited financial interest without direct control if incentives harm competition. |
| Should the case be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the clarified statutory interpretation? | Remand to address how the reorganization aligns with the Act. | Remand unnecessary or limited. | Yes; vacate and remand for reexamination under the clarified § 3204(5) interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Competitive Energy Servs. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 818 A.2d 1039 (Me. 2003) (interpretation of statute and deference to PUC when ambiguous)
- Dunn v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 890 A.2d 269 (Me. 2006) (deferential review of PUC decisions)
- Dep’t of Corr. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 968 A.2d 1047 (Me. 2009) (ambiguity and reasonableness review of agency construction)
- Carrier v. Sec’y of State, 60 A.3d 1241 (Me. 2012) (statutory interpretation giving words meaning)