*1 MID-ATLANTIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND et al. 157, Sept. Term,
No. Appeals Maryland. Court of (PER ORDER). July 20, 2000 CURIAM (OPINION). Oct. *2 (Thomas L.
Kenneth Wiseman R. Kline Mark F. Sund- L.L.P.), DC, back of & Andrews Kurth Washington, petitioner. (Brett Jennings
Deborah E. Ingerman Piper, Marbury, LLP), Wolfe, Rudnick Miller, & Susan Stevens General Coun- (Public sel Service Com’n of Maryland), Michael J. Travieso (Sandra Fields, M. Guthorn and F. People’s William Office of (Gorak Counsel), L.L.C.), Thomas Gorak Bay Baltimore, C. & *3 Curran, Jr., (M. Joseph Atty. Hare, J. Gen. Atty. Brent Asst. Gen.), Annapolis, (Gordon, Allan J. Feinblatt, Malester Roth- man, Hollander, (Miles Hoffberger LLC), Henry & J. Suelau P.C.), Stockbridge, Milton, Baltimore, & Jeral A. respon- dents. Smith,
Gordon J. John Hengerer, & of Brief National Energy Ass’n Marketers filed on of petitioner, behalf Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae. BELL, C.J.,
Argued ELDRIDGE, before and RODOWSKY, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL and HARRELL, JJ.
PER CURIAM ORDER For filed, reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be having argument Court heard oral in captioned above case, having and concluded that the has appellant standing judicial review, seek it is 20th of day July, ORDERED, by Appeals the Court of of Maryland, majori- ty concurring, Court that the judgment the Circuit be, Court for City reversed, Baltimore and hereby, it is and City Baltimore Court for to the Circuit is remanded case and it further proceedings, for further in accor- the Court stays imposed by that the ORDERED 30, 2000, judgment on the with its Order dated June dance and City April dated for Baltimore Court Circuit of the Public # 75757 and Order May entered 1999, be, filed November Maryland Commission Service dissolved, applying prejudice without they hereby, are and review, and stay pending judicial Court for to the Circuit is further forthwith; costs to shall issue
ORDERED that the mandate by the paid appellees. OPINION BELL, Judge. Chief Mid- appellant, case whether the presents
The issue this (“MAPSA”), a trade associ- Association Supply Atlantic Power becoming suppliers who are interested companies ation of in the proceedings to the electricity Maryland,1 and re- Commission, to seek has Public Service order, Public Service appellee view of the issued (“PSC”), and settlement approving stipulation Baltimore appellees into and between agreement, entered (“BGE”), Maryland Office Company Electric Gas and (“OPC”), Resources- Natural People’s Counsel Re- the Power Plant Maryland Energy Administration (“DNR/MEA”) others, collectively repre- Program search classes, and the all environmental interests senting customer City deter- Court Baltimore large.2 at The Circuit public *4 and, accordingly, standing appellant had no mined that that, matter, associations argues policy trade appellant 1. as The they are the most standing seek review as often have should necessary providing input to the means of efficient and economical policy in view of making process. reach the issue We do not decision statutory as matter of construction. resolution the case our of moved, review, appellant in the Along petition 2. with its for Court, stay portions Service Commission certain of the Public Circuit petition dismissed its for granted review. We for appellant’s petition and, writ of certiorari following oral argument July on issued our reversing decision judgment of the remanding Circuit Court and the case court to conduct explain review. We now the reasons for that decision. controversy
The seeds of this sown were first when the PSC developed policy designed initiatives to restructure electric i.e., Maryland, industry develop a market capable sup- porting competition the sale of electricity the BGE area, service and later when the Electric Customer Choice and Competition Act of 1999 by was enacted the General Assembly the Governor. See 1999 Md. Laws. and signed by into law Chap. to, with, 3. Pursuant and in accordance the PSC’s initiatives, an application BGE filed forth setting its restruc- turing It plan. was docketed in Commission Case 8794. The OPC also a petition filed to reduce the rates charged BGE. case, That docketed Case was consolidated with Case 8794. Pennsylvania
The appellant corporation operates which aas for companies trade association participating both the wholesale and retail electric supply Maryland, markets in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio and the District of capacity, Columbia. In that petition filed a to intervene in the OPC’s petition rate reduction action. That granted.3 was order, alia, particular, relating recovery inter those to BGE’s competitive stranded costs and charge. collection transition The stay subsequently by motion to was denied that court and the Court Therefore, Special and, thus, Appeals. petition for certiorari reviewed, being presented issue to the Court in the context of a request stay, granted, along grant which the Court with its certiorari, pending, during, be addressed the Court’s review of standing argument, the merits of the issue. After oral the Court announced the stay. decision issue and lifted its thus, stay, and, therefore, longer no is before this Court will not be
further addressed.
proceedings
Intervention in
before the Public Service Commission is
governed by Maryland
Code
Utility
3-106
the Public
Com-
Article,
panies
provides:
*5
seen,
because,
that matter
occurred,
as we have
that
When
consolidated,
appel-
the
restructuring
had been
plan
and the
did,
to,
fully
negotia-
the
participate
lant was enabled
Obviously, its
at issue.
to the settlement
leading up
tions
provisions
as to those
parties,
of two other
and that
opposition,
costs, the allocation
the stranded
addressing
of the settlement
rates,
unbundling
did
of the rate reduction
agree-
sign
to
settlement
appellant
refused
prevail and
other
parties,
BGE and several
ment reached
had
Once the settlement
been
on
1999.
signed
June
proceed-
in the
reached,
participated
thereafter
appellant
PSC,
challenging those terms
the settlement
in the
ings
Its efforts in the
negotiations.
opposed
it earlier had
during negotiations.
than
When
no more successful
PSC were
settlement,
No.
by Commission Order
approved
the PSC
petition
its
appellant
filed
on November
review.4
files,
"(a)
timely
person may apply
Application.
person
—If
proceeding before the Commission.
intervene in a
"(b)
grant
to intervene unless
Commission shall
leave
Decision.—The
the Commission concludes that:
represent
"(1)
proceeding adequately
the interest
parties
to the
intervene;
person seeking
of the
"(2)
irrelevant or
that the
seeks
raise are
the issues
immaterial.
"(c)
rights
Rights
intervenor has all the
An
intervener.—
proceeding.
party to a
Commission,
"(2)
an individual who is
proceeding before the
In a
may represent
or herself.”
intervenor
himself
an
submitted,
petition for certiorari and brief on the
appellant
The
in its
merits,
proceeding
parties
did not
the other
to the
that "[b]ecause
interest,
adequately represent
MAPSA’s intervention was
MAPSA’s
Court,
hand,
ruling on the
the Circuit
granted....”
On the other
issue,
"peti-
noted that
summary judgment on the
motion for
granted
to intervene in the Commission’s
MAPSA was
leave
tioner
longstanding
proceedings
with
PSC tradition which
in accordance
parties
participate
encourages
of all interested
the involvement
public
regulations governing Maryland’s
policy and
establishment of
public utilities.”
George’s County,
petition
the Circuit Court for Prince
was filed in
transferred,
appellant to
of BGE and the
but
with the consent
City.
for Baltimore
Circuit Court
BGE
summary judgment
moved
issue
appellant’s standing to
prosecute
proceeding.
argued
It
in the motion and before the Circuit Court that the
*6
interest,”
not “a
appellant
party
person
or
in
pointing out
that,
association,
an
only
as
in a
operating
representative
capacity, it had no interest
in
proceedings separate
the
and
distinct
from the interests of its
Rejecting
members.
the
appellant’s
Commission,
party
rebuttal —it was a
before the
participating fully in the proceedings,
it meets the definition of
and,
event,
party,
in any
controlling
the
clearly
statute
gives it
unambiguously
standing5
court agreed with BGE
—the
granted
and thus
the motion for summary judgment.
In
conclusion,
its
reaching
it relied on
of
legislative history
statute,
rather
than the clear
of the
import
language:
appellant’s] argument
ignores
“What
...
[the
is that which
came to the attention of
namely
the Court of Appeals,
Court,
appellant
citing Bosley Dorsey,
contended in the Circuit
v.
239-40,
229,
and,
(1948)
191 Md.
particular,
60 A.2d
in
(1939)
Maryland
§§
Code
Article
359 and
the latter section
being
predecessor
(1998)
§
Code
3-302 of the Public
Article,
Companies
traditionally
Utilities
that associations have
been
authorized to seek
review of orders
of
Public Service
Commission.
provided:
§
Article
association,
"Any company, corporation,
person
partnership
or
sub-
sub-title,
ject
any
provisions
of
of this
person
party
or other
or
interest,
vacate,
right
proceed
in
shall have the
in the courts to
set
any
grounds
aside or have modified
order of said Commission on the
unlawful,
that such order is unreasonable or
as hereinafter more
particularly set forth.”
provided:
Article
sub-title,
"Any corporation subject
any
provisions
to this
or
sub-title,
any person
being
any
in interest
dissatisfied with
commission,
rates, tolls,
fixing
order
any
of the
or
charges,
rate
schedules,
rates,
joint
any
fixing any
rate or
regulations,
service,
practices,
may
acts or
any
commence
action
the Circuit
any county,
any judge
Court for
Supreme
or before
of the
Bench of
any
City,
City
appropriate
Baltimore
court of Baltimore
jurisdic-
adopted
tion
purpose, against
for the
the commission
any
as defendant to
ground
vacate and set aside
such order on the
rates, tolls,
schedules,
rates,
charges,
joint
that the rate or
rate or
unlawful,
fixed in such order
regulation,
is
or that
practice,
such
unreasonable,
act or service fixed in such order is
in which action a
copy
complaint
shall be served with the summons.”
Public Service Com-
to amend the
legislative
active
efforts
fact,
an effort to establish
underway.
law then
mission
in the 1947
Counsel
rights
People’s
for the Office
appeal
was one of
Assembly
defeated and that
had been
General
Dorsey,
Bosley
for the Court’s decision
the bases
than
[229,] 239-40[,
Rather
].
60 A.2d
review
statutory
the current
standard
misread
is
consistency,
this Court
purpose
of historical
of the fact
significance
the historical
persuaded
an
the reference to
of the law abandons
current codification
review
having
right
to obtain
‘association’
now,
statuto-
is limited
with
orders. That entitlement
PSC
and this
to ‘a
in interest’
ry
exceptions,
statutory
scheme. Whether
term art
undefined
in a contested
analogizes
‘aggrieved party
to an
the Court
of a final decision
case,’
who
entitled
*7
Act or mere-
Maryland Administrative Procedure
under the
Bosley
cited in
v.
of the PSC cases
ly
language
looks
694],
235-36[,
the inescapable
The court dismissed mentioned, review, already prejudice. -with As we of certiorari granted petition for writ and appellant’s judgment. reversed that statutory of construction are well settled.
The canons those, of this recently dispositive reaffirmed relevant and We Chase, v. 360 Md. Mayor City case in & Council Baltimore of (2000). case, 121, 128, 987, In that quoting 756 A.2d 991 v. Dir. Fin. and Potomac Tel. Co. Md. Chesapeake of of 567, Baltimore, 343 Md. 683 Mayor City Council of (1996), said, regard, A.2d 517-18 we in that statutory discern goal interpretation, the real of pursuing begin inquiry of we our Legislature, ment the intent and, with the words of the statute they when are clear there, it unambiguous, we end point well. The was made yet again that we neither add nor a delete words to clear and unambiguous give statute to it meaning not reflected words Legislature engage used or forced subtle interpretation in an attempt limit extend or the statute’s Moreover, meaning. whenever possible, the statute should be clause, word, read so that no sentence or phrase is rendered superfluous or nugatory.
We also reviewed those canons applicable when the statute to interpreted part is a statutory scheme. Quoting Comm’r, 124, 131-32, GEICO v. Insurance 332 Md. (1993), 630 A.2d 717-18 we necessity reading noted the subject statutes the same together, harmonizing them to possible, the extent and that such statutes are to be read rendering them, avoid or “any either portion, meaningless, surplusage, superfluous or nugatory.” at Id. A.2d at 717. While we acknowledged role that legislative history plays in of statutes, the interpretation even when the words Legislature used are unambiguous, clear and see Harris v. State, 137, 146, 331 Md. (1993), A.2d indicating that, in the interest of completeness, may, we and sometimes will, legislative statute, review the history a clear we explained, State, quoting Coleman 281 Md. (1977) (“a court general as a rule surmise
a legislative
contrary
intention
plain
statute or
exceptions
insert
not made
the legislature”), that
“the resort to legislative history is a confirmatory
process;
is not undertaken to contradict
plain meaning
*8
Chase,
statute.”
The to review of an or order decision of the Public Service Commission is by Maryland controlled (1999) 3-202(a) § Code Utility the Public Companies Arti cle. It provides:
“(a) In general. Except for the Commission, staff of the a — interest, party or in person including People’s Counsel, that is dissatisfied a final decision or order of or decision judicial review may seek Commission in this subtitle.” provided as order language, plain unambiguous. By its is clear and The statute or of a Commission judicial review eligible to to seek interest” person a decision, “party must be petitioner believe or order. We the decision with and be “dissatisfied” a party if is either petitioner fulfilled the test is that the status or, if a party, not a the Commission before proceedings to the believe, we appellant qualifies, in interest.” “person under either status. Utility Compa- the Public term under
“Person” is a defined l-101(s) that term Article defines that nies Article. Section trustee, individual, receiver, guardian, personal to “an mean and kind fiduciary, representative representative, association, or other enti- firm, corporation, any partnership, definition, parties agree, appellant, ty.” as Under association, a association, person. an albeit a trade was, the parties as we have seen and The appellant Because agree, party before the PSC. also proceedings these allowed, intervene, moved, Code and was Article, Companies governing Utility § Public 3-106 of the implicated. Be proceedings, intervention § 3- meaning “party,” used § 3-106 defines the cause 3-202(a) 3- together. Section 202(a), it must be read if to intervene permitted shall be provides person that the Commission timely application makes person being not person of that are that the interests concludes or issues the and that the issue adequately represented Thus, to nor immaterial. neither irrelevant seeks raise are Commission, a proceeding to a before become a Commission, to determined, by have have been party must being adequately is not proceeding an interest in the turn, interest, has determined been and that represented proceeding.6 consequence or of no not to be frivolous participating as a requirements appellees that “the 6. The state strict,” they position, very ‘party’ level are at the administrative *9 granted, Once has person intervention been the has all the rights of case, to the In proceeding. having intervened, appellant fully the participated pro- the PSC which ceedings at the settlement agreement underlying the Commission order was the approved Commission. Section 3-106 informs meaning also the phrase, the “person seen, in interest.” requires As we have to intervene that there be an interest that person seeking the to intervene has that is not being adequately represented. that, It follows once intervention granted, has been the interest that Commission has found the person have had is dissipat- not ed.
The requirement that there be dissatisfaction with the sought decision to be reviewed is when the fulfilled party or judicial review, interest proffering seeks for reasons the court to reverse order or In this decision. case, appellant sought judicial and, has to the more point, it has advanced rational for overturning basis ie., order,7 agreement the settlement by the approved Commission does not with comply the mandate of the Electric Competition event, Customer Choice and Act.8 In there suggest, agreed, with which the Commission as demonstrated its order, stating requested that "all entities that leave to intervene in these proceedings granted party consolidated Contrary were status.” to the position Commission, appellees apparently and the interven- review, require tion perfunctory statute seems to more than a done, perhaps charged but with which the Commission is nonetheless. By characterizing 7. appellant’s seeking basis for to overturn the agreement "rational,” settlement and thus the Commission’s order as commenting we are not argument, only merits its its bona entitling fides appellant to seek review. addition, certiorari, appellant, petition in its offered three indicia of its dissatisfaction with the Commission order: "(i) opposed sign MAPSA underlying did not the settlement (ii) sought judicial Commission Order MAPSA review of the Commis- Order, (iii) sought sion stay portions MAPSA has selected prosecutes petition
the Commission Order while it its review.” with the “dissatisfied” appellant no that the dispute serious PSC. decision and order of the they As differently. see quite the issue appellees view *10 dissatisfaction, test
it, applicable than argue, rather and conclusion, this In standing “aggrievement.” support is interest,’” ‘in phrase rely “modifying on the appellees 3-202(a), § lan- 3-202(a), legislative history §in used 3-202(a),9 fact that “this and the in cases guage applying contexts, an held, analogous that consistently has Court judicial review aggrieved is not or entitled association interest at stake that is itself has an unless association its members.” from the interests of separate and distinct 191 interest,” Dorsey, v. citing Bosley As “in phrase, to the (1948), 236, Service v. 60 at 694 Public Comm’n Md. at A.2d (1927) 404, 464, 471, Gregg A. 406 and 153 Md. 138 Byron, 1111, (1913), Laird, appellees 121 87 A. 1114 Md. it to mean an interpreted “having that Court assert has Commission].” adversely [of interest affected sure, to it in made the attributed To be the Court statements cases; however, Bosley, In context critical. those standing of an nothing the issue had do with example, judicial review of an order as to which it association to seek Court was question before the whether dissatisfied. review, People’s Counsel had seek fact, appellant agree. goes saying It does not without that believes, nothing argues, that the in the cases is more generic commentary. than It asserts: Laird, 1, (1913)] [Gregg 87 A. [121 Court in 1111 “[r]he v.] pointed rights parties aggrieved simply out that ‘the who feel guarded protected by fully by the action of the commission are newly law. provision the’ review of the then enacted PSC Thus, 32-33, added). (emphasis 87 A. the Court’s 121 Md. at at 1114 generic commentary establishing partic- as in Laird cannot be read Likewise, [Public ularized standard of harm. the Court in Service 474, [404,] [464,] Byron, 138 v.] 153 Md. A. ], (1927) proceeding under the PSC Law [ described arising passed as one from 'an order at the conclusion of an issue by competent and in which has been heard and determined tribunal any corporation subject such a manner to cause dissatisfaction ” added) party (emphasis to the act or to other in interest.’ (citation omitted). right, his own under the applicable provisions of the Public effect, Service see note 5, Commission Law then in supra, where §§ Code Article 359 and out,, applicable provisions, is, are set “whether the Peo- ple’s Counsel a ‘person in interest’ contemplation within the Id. Court, of the statute.” at A.2d at 693. The having “[ojrdinarily noted that an attorney is not a ato suit in merely which he acts in a professional capacity representing id. at a litigant,” v. Elgin, A.2d Pressman citing at (1947), 187 Md. set out People’s Counsel’s contention, that right his to seek review was as the agent the persons order, affected the Commission’s that he was injuriously Id. It was in by that affected order. this context that the Court meaning addressed the of a in interest.
After the tracing development of the Office of People’s Counsel, the Court addressed who was authorized to seek §§ review under 359 and 425: Commission, v.
“In
Gregg
Public
[Laird]
Service
1,
121 Md.
32,
(1913)
1111,
],
A.
87
1114 [
the first
the
test of
Public
Law,
Service Commission
that,
the Court of Appeals held
while the statute did not use
‘appeal’
the word
in connection
right
with the
challenge
Commission,
to
an
of
order
the
the
rights
parties
of any
aggrieved
of
by any action
the Com
fully
mission
safeguarded
were
the
by
provision that any
subject
corporation
to the
‘any person
statute and
in inter
est being dissatisfied with any
may
order’
commence a suit
against
the Commission.
from an
Appeals
of
the
may
Commission
be taken
by
either
a regulated public
utility
by
or
or
any
corporations
individuals
having an
interest adversely affected by the order. Public Service
v. Byron,
464,
471,
[,
Md.
138 A. (1927)].[10]”
464,
Byron,
(1927),
In Public Service Comm’n v.
153 Md.
out duties id. at 236, 694, it at Attorney, former Assistant reasoned: no from 1912 to 1922 did that at time
“It is conceded
from
to
privilege
appeal
Counsel have the
Assistant General
earnestly con-
complainant
But
orders of the Commission.
to
gives
right
appeal
him the
the statute
tended that
Counsel is
argued
People’s
that the
implication. He
Counsel, as was the Assistant
of the General
subordinate
an
Counsel,
is an
of the Governor and
appointee
but
General
allegiance
no
of the utilities with
for the customers
agent
cannot, however,
the fact
brush aside
We
Commission.
transferring
functions
Assis-
Legislature,
that the
for the
Counsel, laid down
People’s
tant General Counsel
performed
the same duties which were
People’s Counsel
Reorgani-
Under the State
the Assistant General Counsel.
Act,
January
office
zation
which took effect
abolished,
the Governor
Assistant General Counsel
414,
(1924)
predecessor
§
pursuant Maryland
Article
Code
Bosley Dorsey,
Article
in effect in
Code
(1948).
any corporation
Noting
"[w]hile
Md.
“While the Public Service Commission Law
it
makes
duty of the
Counsel
People’s
before the
appear
Commis-
sion on behalf of the
or
public
public
defense of the
(Laws
563,
1912,
1924,
534,
interests
of
ch.
Laws of
ch.
Laws
1927,
201,
1939,
353),
ch.
Code
art.
sec.
it does not
authorize him to prosecute appeals from
orders
significant
Commission.
It is also
that Section
after
providing that the
experts
services
employed by the
Commission and also its records and other facilities shall be
of by
availed
People’s
performance
Counsel in the
of his
duties,
public
provides
further
that nothing contained there-
prevent
shall
‘any party or interest’ in any proceeding
before the
from
appearing
or from
being represented by counsel. As the
Counsel is
People’s
an attorney
himself
required to appear before the Commis-
sion, this provision strongly indicates that the Legislature
”
did not consider him as a
or
‘party
interest.’
236-37,
Id. at
addressed. In Byron, issues, there were two whether municipality benefitted the Commission order was a neces- *13 subject order and challenging an action sary party to proper was the City Court Baltimore the Circuit whether Among the various 469, 138 A. at 406. 153 Md. at venue. See the “action whether Gregg in was questions raised an execution before granting of to the amount[ed] Commission Md. at appellant.” against entered judgment [was] to that responding in the course of A. at 1114. It was interest of concerning the that the statements argument made. order were Commission’s challenger believe, and when that enacted significant, It we decided, standing issue the law addressed Bosley Public to those whom solely by reference to entities it had an or as to whom Law applied Commission Service indeed, no define, and, there was statute effect; it did not to review of a delineated, rights Maryland Code Only in the Commission. proceedings before 16(d)11 That “party” § used. was the term Art. 78 section, very general prescribed its predecessor, as did challenge resort to the courts entities who could terms the however, 74(a), 415(a), § former orders. Section have necessary to be met to out the standard set referred challenge. Significantly, that section maintain such after, interest,” cataloguing the again only “person Only with the re-codification applies. entities to which the law law, Laws, see 1955 Md. Public Service Commission part of Chap. concept “party” did the become standing. See delineating the law the test section of (1955, Repl.Vol.) § Art. 83. And the Maryland Code in the Commission provided for intervention re-codification proceedings. 3-202, § interest,” argue that “in as used
The appellees “person” § “party” both as enacted in modifies and, so, provisions of the Public By Maryland, Laws of ch.
11. placed 23 and from Article Service Commission law were removed formerly 16 of Art. 78 was Article Code. Section 78 of 359 of Art. requirements “the Gregg, set forth in Byron and Bosley, only ‘regulated’ entities and other persons parties ‘in *14 interest,’ i.e., affected, adversely may judicial obtain review of a Commission order continue to Only control. associa- (and entities) tions ‘subject other to regulation’ by the persons or parties and ‘in interest’ have stand- ing appeal to Commission decisions.” maintain, words, They in other that the only substantive change by effected the 1955 re-codification of the Public Service Commission Law was the consolidation provi- into one sion of the several that theretofore had addressed issue.12 Support argument for the was in found a Staff to the Report Commission on Organization State, Administrative of the rec- ommending no change judicial to the existing require- review ments,13 “Report of the Commission to Revise and Recodi- fy the Laws Concerning the Public Commission,” Service which, like the Staff Report, explicit contained no recommen- change dation to judicial requirements14 review and the § absence an explanatory note to 83 indicating such an intention.
We are not persuaded. The argument in flies the face of the plain unambiguous and language the statute. More- 16(d) 74(a), taxicabs, 12. §§ to relating addition and also judicial provided: addressed review. It association, "Any person, corporation of interest who shall be dissatisfied at action of Public refusing Service Commission for grant permit hereunder, ruling, regulation or for order or shall right have appeal provided of an in Section of this Article Appeals.” and to the Court of Report The author of the Sykes, Staff Esq., Melvin who wrote: "[cjorporations persons in appeal interest from commission Court____ by filing provisions orders in the Circuit The well-drawn, easily review are brief and understood.” Report 14. The following: introduction to the contained the "changes phraselogy present in of the law not are intended to effect any change meaning specifically unless such intention is stated in notes, explanatory language or the clear of the draft leads inescapably to the change conclusion that some meaning must have been intended.” review provi- over, change in focus the drastic 1955, to seek Before conclusion. opposite to the sion leads to the Com- review, not have been one need or affected just subject to the law proceeding, mission only the re-codification challenged. With decision was able affected the decision adversely one interested too, so, those who were decision, but were challenge ruling of which the to be proceeding out parties to the Thus, of the statute the clear challenged emanated. to the “leads, Assembly,] led the General must have [and itself change meaning must have been that some conclusion intended.” rely finally Maryland indicating cases appellees only and entitled to aggrieved
an association separate case an interest or stake when it has *15 members whose interests distinct from the interests the County v. Planning Housing & Ass’n represents, see Citizens 345, 333, County, 273 Md. 329 A.2d Baltimore Executive of 681, (1974); County, 247 Bryniarski Montgomery v. 687-88 (1967); 142-46, 289, 137, Heights 230 293 Norwood Md. A.2d Baltimore, Mayor City Council Ass’n v. & Improvement (1950); 1, 8, 1, Maryland 4 Naturopathic 72 A.2d 195 Md. 630, 538, (1948), Kloman, 626, 191 62 A.2d 539 Ass’n v. Md. party has as a participated or not the association whether Mary See Medical Assoc. v. agency proceedings. Waste the 596, 613, 241, Coalition, 612 249-50 327 Md. A.2d land Waste Env., v. (1992); Department Ass’n Sugarloaf Citizens’ (1996). 605, Although not 271, 286, 686 613 344 Md. A.2d also is embodied by appellees, principle on relied Act, Maryland Procedure see Administrative 10-222(a) Vol.) (1984, § of the State Govern Repl. Code Article, provides: ment (1)
“(a)
Except
provided
as
Review
decision.
of final
(b)
section,
who is
party
aggrieved
of this
subsection
judicial
in a contested case is entitled to
final decision
provided in this section.”
of the decision as
(holding
A.2d at 614
“that the
344 Md. at
Sugarloaf,
mirrors
statutory
‘aggrieved’
that a
requirement
general common law standing principles
applicable to
decisions”),
review of administrative
citing Medical Waste
Coalition,
Assocs. v. Maryland
supra,
Waste
Again, persuaded. we appellees’ argument again once plain belied govern- the statute ing entitlement review. Additionally, the Public Service Commission its proceedings exempted have been APA, from requirements including the provision governing This review. exclusion is indicative of an intention the part Legislature to continue the applicability of the unique provisions to which the Public subject, Service Commission is separate from applicable those agencies to which the APA applies. See State Government 10-203(3)(vi).15 § Article Had the Legislature intended that standard for review of Public Service Commission proceedings be the same prescribed as that for contested APA, cases under the it is inconceivable that it would have excluded Public Service APA, Commission from the or at § least not from the coverage of 10-206.
Moreover, out, appellant points interpret,, 3- 202(a) as appellees word, do would render the “dissatis- fied,” which has been a part the scheme its inception, since “meaningless, surplusage, GEICO, superfluous, or nugatory.” 332 Md. at at 717. difference, There is a as our cases recognize, see George’s Carusillo Prince County, 289 424 A.2d (treating separately *16 provides: 15. That section
"(a) General apply exclusions. —This subtitle does not to:
government: "(3) following agencies [******] of the Executive Branch of the State The review. Procedure Act —Contested subtitle to which the exclusion "(vi) the Public Service Commission....” [******] Cases,” § applies 10-206(a) is "Subtitle 2. Administrative of which covers judicial
215 that under the APA and standard under review 404);16 (1957, § Art. see Repl.Vol.) 1980 Maiyland Code Waste, 327 Md. at also, supra, Medical Waste the “dissatisfied” 9, 612 at 248 note between 611 note has the law requirements. long It been “aggrieved” give settled, that statutes are to be read to well Maryland and otherwise contravenes meaning every word used and do GEICO, 332 Md. statutory rule of construction. this cardinal Chase, Md. at 756 supra, 717. at 630 A.2d at See 991; Congregation, Blitz v. Beth Isaac Adas Israel A.2d at (1998). 720 A.2d reasons, concludes that the foregoing For this Court of the Commis- has to seek appellant as to it is dissatisfied. sion order HARRELL, Judge, dissenting, joined by RODOWSKY RAKER, Judges: majority’s stay to lift the agree
I with the decision (“Commission”); how- order of the Public Service regard to I am the Court’s decision with unpersuaded ever standing to seek trade association’s Appellant 1999. the Commission’s November review from statute majority plain language holds that association grants standing to seek review to trade of its no interest at stake than the interest with different majority’s holding in this case offends settled members. The law. statutory construction and established case principles standing. Ac- I that the trade association lacks would hold judgment I affirm the of the cordingly, dissent and would City dismissing petition for Baltimore Circuit Court judicial review. (1957, Repl.Vol.), provided Maiyland Code Art. pertinent part: "Any any regulation person, dissatisfied with order or ... subtitle, provisions [Secretary] may commence ... under the of this any county
any in the court for ... to vacate and set action circuit regulation.” aside such order *17 3-202(a) Section Utility the Public Companies Article (“PUC”), judicial limits the right to seek to party review “a or interest, in person including Counsel, the People’s is by a dissatisfied final decision or order of the Commission.” (“MAPSA”) The Mid-Atlantic Supply Power Association con- tends that it was both a party before the Commission and a person statute,1 as defined by that, because clearly order, “dissatisfied” with the Commission’s it is enti- tled to seek problem review. The with this analysis is ignores that it “in modifying phrase interest” contained the statute. Bosley Dorsey, (1948), A.2d 691
Court was asked determine if newly the Commission’s then People’s created Counsel possessed requisite seek review of an order Commission.2 The statute, time, as written at the separate contained two provi- sions for review from an order It Commission. provided, pertinent part, follows:
Any company, corporation, association, or person partner- ship subject any of the provisions sub-title, of this or person interest, or shall have the right proceed vacate, to the courts to set aside or have modified an order of said ground that such order unrea- unlawful, sonable or as hereinafter more particularly set forth.
Maryland Code, 1939, 23, § Article 359. The further statute provided:
Any subject sub-title, corporation to this or any provisions sub-title, of this any person being interest any commission, dissatisfied with fixing any rates, tolls, rate or schedules, charges, joint rates, rate or l-101(s) individual, Section of the PUC defines a as "an receiver, trustee, guardian, personal representative, fiduciary, repre- any firm, any association, sentative partnership, kind and corpora- entity.” tion or Bosley, process 2. At the time review was referred to as appeal. an service, acts or regulations, practices, fixing any any order any Court for in the Circuit commence action *18 bench of Balti- supreme of the any judge county, or before City appropriate any in court of Baltimore City, more against purpose, for the adopted jurisdiction any to vacate and set aside as a defendant the commission tolls, rates, or ground that the rate such order the schedules, rates, in such order is joint rate or fixed charges, or act service unlawful, regulation, practice, or that such any unreasonable, copy in which action a in is fixed such order the summons. shall be served with complaint of the question pre- § 415. The Code, Article People’s is a in the Counsel Bosley was “whether sented statute.” contemplation the the in interest’ within ‘person 233, 60 at 693. 191 Md. at provisions as interpreted statutory the two
The Court judicial any “regulated review to seek granting corporations having or an or ... utility any individuals public Bosley, 191 at order.” Md. adversely by affected the interest Byron, (citing at Public Serv. Comm’n 60 A.2d (1927)). 464, 471, 138 language, A. Based on this Legislature that intended rejected argument the Court as an People’s Counsel could seek review that public. agent
Shortly Assembly after General amended the Bosley, the specifically People’s to allow the Counsel seek PUC Assembly recodify In decided review. 1955 General REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO REVISE PUC. THE PUB- AND THE LAWS CONCERNING RECODIFY (1955) (“REPORT”), leg- LIC SERVICE COMMISSION result, in that study part, islative commission noted “[a]s integrated statutory plan, defect of lack an basic repetition.” REPORT law also swollen with much needless Thus, goal of the recodification was to proposed at 3. basic reorganize into a repetition eliminate such the statute at 4. The Commission also coherent form. See REPORT stated, any in Report, “changes in the introduction to the present any of the law are not intended to effect phraseology in change meaning unless specifically such intention is stated notes, in explanatory or the clear of the draft inescapably leads to the conclusion that some change mean- must ing have been intended.” REPORT at 5. The 1955 revision of the a product PUC was of the Commission’s recommendations. provisions statute, of the former Commission,
recommended were recodified into one section. provided, pertinent The recodified statute part, as follows: interest,
Any party including the People’s Counsel, final dissatisfied decision commission, form", whether affirmative or negative entitled provided review thereof as in this subti- tle. *19 Code, 1955, 78, § Article In 83.3 Bureau Mines of Creek, 143,
v. George’s 155, 748, 272 Md. 321 A.2d 754-55 (1974), we identified the of significance changes made ato in a statute recodification: in of change phraseology
[A] in a statute codification will law, not as a general modify rule the change unless the sois radical or material that the intention of the to Legislature modify the law appears unmistakable from of language the the Code.
The comment to former
of
83 Article 78 of the revised code
specifically stated that the section was intended
integrate
to
the existing
provisions
easily
review into one
69;
understandable section. See REPORT at
see also Allers
Tittsworth,
v.
677, 683,
269
Md.
309 A.2d
(explaining that it is
of
practice
well-settled
this Court
refer to the Revisor’s Notes when
searching
legislative
intent). Thus, other than to alter
the result
in Bosley
expressly declaring the People’s
‘party
Counsel to be a
in
interest,’
changes
made to the statute
during
nearly
3. The
used in this
is
statute
identical
the statute as
appears today.
of
enlarge
per-
the class
not intended
were
recodification
interpreted
of
class as
scope
beyond
in interest
sons
or ...
individuals
i.e.,
public utility
any ‘regulated
Bosley,
by the
adversely affected
an interest
having
or corporations
Depending
the statute majority asserts Majority at 204-05. The opinion this case. than “an something means less that the term “dissatisfied” interest,” “in term affected” and thus the adversely interest Court, “dissatisfied” Bosley would render interpreted 207-13, at 214-15. Because meaningless. Majority opinion interpretation principal statutory guidelines one so no reasonably a statute read possible, that “[i]f surplusage is rendered phrase, word clause or sentence Correction, 360- Dep’t meaningless,” Mazor v. (1977), majority reasons that 369 A.2d 86-87 less than to confer based on statute should be read adversely Although interpretation an interest affected.4 *20 present presented by the Although upon to decide the issue called (albeit dicta) case, predecessors to that the seem have assumed our by of standing conferred the various iterations to seek review requirement interest be pertinent a that one’s the statute included Bosley aggrieved. Dorsey, 191 adversely and one be See v. affected that 691, 229, 235-36, (1948) any rights (stating that of 60 A.2d 694 the Md. completely parties aggrieved by any the Commission were action of “ ‘any person being dissatisfied by provision the that in interest secured against and any may a suit the Commission” with order’ commence may "[ajppeals be taken either that from an order of the Commission corporations by regulated public utility by any individuals or having adversely by (citing Public Serv. affected the order" an interest 464, 471, (1927); Gregg Byron, 138 A. 407 Comm’n v. 153 Md. Laird, (1913))); Byron, Md. at Md. 87 A. 1114 153 121 220
of the it facially appealing, persuade statute is to fails me its (1) correctness for three reasons: the majority’s construction (2) would also surplusage; create the interpretation of the Bosley is more plain Court consistent with the statute; Legislature the interpretation relied on the given to the language Bosley when it recodified the statute.
First,
majority’s
under the
language,
construction
“in
phrase
interest” would
If
surplusage.
become
as-
one
sumes
term “dissatisfied”
term
key
determining
is
review,
what
required
is
“in
then
interest” adds
nothing
construction,
to the statute.
Under
all that would
required
be
seek
review is that
or a
an
dissatisfied with
order or decision of the Commission.
were,
This
If
construction cannot be correct.
it
literally
anyone
empowered
would be
to seek
of a Public
Service Commission order.
Hypothetically, a citizen
service area
pertinent
not covered
PSC order in the
case
present
challenge
could
that order because he or
she
dissatisfied with the
fact
citizens in the erstwhile BGE
paying
service area will be
less
an
electricity. Such
consequence
absurd
could not have been the
intention of
Mazor,
Legislature. See
221 an which does not create previously accepted has lature absurd result. fails of the statute
Second, majority’s interpretation “in interest” articulated definition of because of plain is more consistent with Bosley Court to as in is often referred phrase “party interest” statute. The in of party in “real interest.” definition party “real In more of much debate. recent has been the issue interest” in interest as: party been to define a real years, the trend has law to enforce the the substantive person A entitled under generally, necessarily, but not upon and who right sued final outcome. from the actions benefits (7th ed.1999); 1143 see also LAW DICTIONARY BLACKS 4, 7-8, 323 Hayes, Inc. v. Liquors, South Down (1991). however, be This, the definition 162-63 could it the statute at Assembly intended when enacted the General is supposed to establish This section of statute issue here. Thus, incor interpretation an rights.5 who enforce “party interest” would porates the modern definition Assembly must meaningless. The General render the statute something in interest” to mean “party person have or intended other than the modern definition. written and recodi- originally
At the time the statute was fied, in defined as party generally interest” “real follows: in name of the brought suits requiring statutes interest,” is person means the who
“real this term actually subject-matter, interested in the substantially nominal, formal, only from has distinguished one who it. technical it or connection with or interest (4th ed.1951). This defi- BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY general to fit more into appropriately nition would seem standing ... ... whether the interest question "The concerns complainant sought protected by arguably zone within the to be regulated by question.” protected the statute ... to be interests Processing Orgs. Camp, U.S. S.Ct. 'n Serv. Ass Data (1970). 25 L.Ed.2d legislative intent the statute. If a party interest has a substantial stake in proceedings, every reasonable to that in nearly assume when instance *22 order, would be dissatisfied with an the order adversely also Thus, would affect its plain interests. the meaning of the statute comports closely interpreta- more with tion provided by the court than Bosley interpretation with the majority today. asserts
Third, evén if interpretation in Bosley the statute was intended, not what Legislature Legislature earlier since has on that in interpretation relied recodifying the statute. Assembly “The General is presumed to be aware of and, this interpretation Court’s of its if enactments such interpretation legislatively overturned, is not to have ac- in quiesced that interpretation.” Nationwide Mutual Insur- G, 131, 143, ance v. Co. USF & 314 Md. 550 A.2d (1988)(intemal quotation marks omitted)(quoting Harden v. Admin., Mass Transit 277 Md. 354 A.2d (1976)). If Legislature had intended trade association to review, judicial able seek it could have removed the “in phrase interest” or specifically provided for such an even- tuality. Assembly
The General did make one change substantive our in interpretation by Bosley specifically allowing the Peo- ple’s Nevertheless, Counsel to seek review. neither change, nor changes subsequently, made have “in Thus, removed the term from the interest” statute. interpretation given to that in phrase Bosley has accept- been ed by Legislature, we can conclude that it is the interpretation that the General Assembly intended at recodifi- A reviewing cation. court cannot look simply plain at the language of in ignore the statute a vacuum and comments to a interpreting statute decision very similar language. legislative history and the interpretation given to the nearly identical Bosley allows us to ascertain the real Mazor, Legislature. intention See 279 Md. at (“The A.2d at 86 cardinal rule construction a statute is to carry ascertain and out the real intention of legislature.”). Dorsey controlling in the instant Bosley The decision Counsel, in Therefore, than the party, People’s other case. Commission, from an order of the review seek by the order. adversely have an interest affected still must Mary- generate electricity or distribute MAPSA does not its land, Only propose deregulation. nor to do so after does adversely the Com- members be affected constituent with no legally is a association order. MAPSA trade mission implementation interest direct or substantial cognizable adversely an interest affected It does not have order. recognize. Consequently, MAP- the order that we should present in the case. standing to review SA has no seek by the properly petition Its dismissed Circuit Court. and RAKER authorize me state
Judges RODOWSKY *23 join this dissent. they 760 A.2d MARYLAND v.
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF Donna A. LEWIS. Term, 26, Sept. No. 2000.
Misc. AG Maryland. Appeals of Court of Oct.
ORDER to terminate inac- having petition The Court considered case, in the response tive status filed thereto above day of is this 12th October