*1
Stroudsburg,
e.g., Pansy
Borough
entry
v.
is:
(3rd Cir.1994) (newspaper could
In order intervene satisfy right, it must three
as a matter (1) it must an interest
criteria: claim subject or transaction is the
property (2) action; it must so situated that the MADISON, DEPARTMENT TOWN OF disposition may impair or im action OF ELECTRIC WORKS interests; ability protect and pede its repre adequately its interest not be v. existing parties to the action. sented COMMISSION, PUBLIC UTILITIES Roe, Doe v. et al. case, Bangor Publishing sought dis In that impounded agree of an Supreme closure settlement Judicial of Maine. Court concerning private litigation. Id. at ment Argued Feb. Bangor Publishing 1237-38. We held that Sept. Decided an did not have interest sufficient inter 24(a) right pursuant as of vene to M.R.Civ.P. impounded
to obtain disclosure of the settle agreement. Although Bangor Publish discovering pub was interested in and
lishing the identities of the and the settlement,
terms of the neither it nor the
public had a direct at stake interest
underlying personal injury claim itself. Roe, Bangor Publishing v. was not Doe
asserting right pursuant disclosure Act; present it Thus it is case is. Bangor satisfy
likely Publishing could protective criteria for in the intervention
order action. correctly
The court determined just proper and
protective order constituted deny for the Town and the Board to
cause conclu-
disclosure the information.6 Our Sylvania supported by
sion GTE orderly
avoids the disservice adminis- to the justice if
tration of that would result subject Board to conflict-
Town and the were
ing orders from the court. protective dispo- order applicant we conclude that the Because and the so situated the Town just proper cause constituted practical of the action matter
sition disclosure, deny do not the Board impede ability impair applicant's arguments af- Champion’s alternative reach interest, applicant's tect that unless the interest pursuant Uniform judgment firming the represented existing parties. adequately Act, §§ 1541-1548 Secrets M.R.S.A. Trade (Supp.1995). *2 F. (orally), Gordon Grimes Milley, Janet E. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer Nelson, Portland, & Appellant. Pierce, Atwood, M. (orally),
Gerald Amero Portland, for CMP. Ballou, (oral-
Peter G. Gilbert W. Brewer ly), Maine Public Utilities Au- gusta, Lightbody, Murray, John Plumb & Assoc, Portland, Murray, for Telephone Maine. WATHEN, C.J., ROBERTS,
Before and GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, LIPEZ, and JJ.
WATHEN, Chief Justice. Works, (MEW),
Madison Electric a de- partment Madison, appeals of the Town of from an order the Public Utilities Commis- (the Commission) sion requiring it to obtain extending consent before ser- already specified vice to certain areas ser- Company viced Central Maine Power (CMP). argues MEW that the Commission’s 2102(1), of 35-A M.R.S.A. (2) (1988 Supp.1995) as a & is erroneous disagree of law. and affirm matter order the Commission.
Initially,
history
a brief review of the
aspect
utility regulation in
the relevant
may
helpful.
Maine
Prior
Maine
chartered
companies by enacting private
special
and
incorporate
laws.
both to
Those laws served
specify
of its
the extent
authority.
resulting utility companies
utilities,” and
autho-
are called
their
“charter
rized service
often consist of whole
areas
towns,
e.g., P.
or even whole counties.
S.L.1887,
8;
S.L.1901, ch. 322. In
eh.
P. &
compa-
to allow
statutes were enacted
nies,
already incorporated under the
Maine,
provide utility
services.
“general
could
These
utilities”
town,
long as no
service in
servicing, or
other
was
utility was
town.
If another
“gen-
already servicing particular
utility”
eral law
could
commence service
other
it
consent of the
unless
obtained the
act of
special
or was authorized
P.L.1895,
In
Legislature.
ch. 102.
(1988
at 35-A M.R.S.A.
changed
provide that consent
the law was
Supp.1995).
Legislature.
from the
could
be obtained
the Commission
ch. 273.
present
brief-
case
The facts
created,
thereafter
ly summarized as follows: Between
required for a
the Commission
Madison
Legislature created the
autho-
to invade another
*3
predecessor, a
Village Corporation, MEW’S
129,
1,
P.L.1913,
§§
ch.
area.
rized service
utility.
was authorized to
MEW
however,
not
utility,”
A “charter
Starks,
Anson,
electricity to the towns of
vide
in
any approval or consent
required to obtain
8;
S.L.1887, ch.
Madison. P. &
part
of
its autho-
its service within
order to extend
1945,
S.L.1901,
its authorized
11. In
P.
ch.
Thus,
utility A” was
if “charter
rized area.
of
expanded to include all
area was
service
all of
to
service to
Cum-
authorized
S.L.1945, ch. 12. At all
P. &
Madison.
Portland,
County,
only
but
berland
serviced
times,
portions
MEW has serviced
relevant
B”
“general would be
1915,
predecessor,
In
CMP’s
of these towns.
approval
providing
obtain
before
Commission
commenced,
utility,
with the
general law
A,”
to Westbrook. “Charter
service
Commission,
part
in a
of
service
consent
however,
its service
could thereafter extend
by
In the
MEW.
of Anson not serviced
without Commission
to Westbrook
Light
Matter
Petition
the Carrabassett
of
of
utility B” was
though “general law
even
to Furnish
Company,
Power
Permission
to establish its service.
first
(Me.P.U.C.
17,
in
Anson
Feb.
Service North
1915).
predecessors serviced
Other CMP
1966,
Telephone
In
held in Poland
portions of Madison and Starks.
Tel.
Tel.
Company v. Pine Tree
1994,
actual
(Me.1966),
sought
its
require-
In
MEW
that the consent
ment,
by offering
§
in
towns
23011 did service
codified at M.R.S.A.
by
territory serviced
customers within the
not
to charter utilities.
observed
§ 1303
to 35-A M.R.S.A.
produced an
and disor- CMP. Pursuant
that the law
uneven
(1988),
in-
requested the Commission
derly system
utility regulation, and
CMP
of
legally
MEW can
invade
very
legis- vestigate
Legislature responded in the
next
whether
first needs
territory,
MEW
by extending
its
and whether
the consent re-
lative session
1995,
utilities,
to do so.
exempt-
quirement to
while
Commission
(1)
order, holding that
its
only
already begun
issued
ing
those that had
service Commission
8,
applies to all utili-
municipality prior to
1967.2 the consent
in a
October
ties,
to serve
first authorized
stylistic changes,
those
for a few
even
grandfather clause
municipality,
unchanged and is now codified
law remains
by special Act
section or
appeared
business under this
as follows
1966:
association,
Legislature,
any person
or
or
purpose
supplying
Corporations
...
[the
without
shall have
television,
telephone,
gas,
any
or
Commission,
its
to furnish
the Public Utilities
organized
in the
...
under
state]
town
city
which
any
in or to
in to
Maine],
general incorporation laws of
No
[the
person
or association
another
corporation
organized ...
shall have authori-
furnishing
or is authorized
ty,
consent of the Public Utilities
without the
to furnish its service
or to
R.S.,
2301,
Sec-
amended.
T.
Sec.
city
tion,
corpora-
or town
or to
Statutes, as
Revised
of Title 35 of the
tion 2301
person
or is
or association
service_
chapter
by
348 of the
I of
amended
furnish a similar
is further amended
Telephone
(emphasis
in Poland
at 488
add-
cited
ed).
paragraph, to read
adding
of a new
at the end
as follows:
portions
of the 1967 amendment
2. The relevant
paragraph
first
The 2nd sentence
as follows:
are
any corporation,
shall not
furnish
R.S.,
amended. T.
Sec. 1.
in which such
town
Title 35 of the
of section 2301 of
2nd sentence
is furnish-
association
following
repealed and the
Revised Statutes is
Act.
of this
date
on the effective
services
place
thereof:
enacted
7, 1967
pur-
Effective
such
either or
(emphasis
organized
ch. 280
poses,
whether
utilities,”
respect
actually
require-
only protects those areas
served
however,
argues,
putative
utility prior to
and ment. MEW
there
invader
utility”
utility’s right
in- was also a “first
versus “second utili-
preserve
does
distinction,
vade,
consent,
ty”
municipali-
which was not
eliminated:
the entire
utility”
prior
grant of
ty.3
did not
wheth-
“charter
created
address
may legally
power to a
would not
MEW
invade CMP’s area
er
to in-
given,
nor did it address
need the consent
the Commission
once consent
rather,
given;
vade that
service area.
whether consent would be
that consent would
decision
stated
argues persuasively that
The Commission
order,
appeals.
required. From this
MEW
amendment, by
plain language,
utilities,
designed
regardless
all
to include
solely
turns
on
This case
the Com
they
when and how
were created. The Com-
mission’s
amend
*4
reading
argues
mission
that MEWs
would
requirement.
of
Accord
the consent
amendment,
purpose of
frustrate the
the
ingly, we review the Commission’s decision
anomaly
was to
first identi-
correct the
Community
for
of law.
Telecommu
errors
agree.
Telephone.
in Poland
We
fied
373,
Corp.
Loughran,
nications
v.
651 A.2d
(Me.1994);
Paper
376
International
Co. v.
2102(1)
language
is
in section
The
Protection, 629
Board
Environmental
of
unambiguous. The 1967 amendment makes
(Me.1993).
597,
A.2d
599
The Commission’s
utilities.
no reference to “first” or “second”
it,
interpretation of a statute administered
any utility
requires
It
to obtain Commission
court,
binding
on this
while not conclusive
into
expanding its service
ter
consent before
great
given
will be
and should be
deference
ritory
by, or authorized to be ser
serviced
upheld
plainly compels a
unless the statute
Legislature
by, any
utility. The
viced
other
contrary
Abbott v. Commissioner
result.
of
in Poland
gap we first noted
closed the
1273,
Wildlife, 623 A.2d
Inland Fisheries &
interpretation
Telephone. The Commission’s
(Me.1993).
1275
language and
plain
is consistent with the
statute,
construing a
When
we
intent of the 1967 amendment.
remedial
give
Legislature’s
intent.
plainly
effect
that
statute
persuaded
are not
(Me.
Morrill,
90,
622 A.2d
Pinkham v.
compels contrary
result.
1993).
ordinarily gleaned
is
from the
Intent
interpretation
parties
All
concede
plain language of
itself.
the statute
Such
2102(1)
strong impact
subparagraph
has a
of
long
plain meaning
applied
will
as it
grandfather
interpretation of the
absurd, illogical,
not
to an
or incon
does
lead
2102(2),
clause,
pro-
two
subparagraph
as the
Sears,
sistent result.
Jordan v.
Roebuck &
harmony
with one
visions must be read
(Me.1994):
Co.,
358,
651 A.2d
Interna
contends,
If,
subpara-
as MEW
another.
Co.,
599-600, quot
Paper
tional
629 A.2d at
of
graph
changed only
small facet
one
State,
ing Mahoney
v.
landscape by requiring
regulation
utilities
as
as “second”
charter utilities well
“second”
consent, and
left
general law utilities
seek
agree
the 1967
utili-
rights of “first” charter
distinction be
untouched the
amendment eliminated the
ties,
grandfather clause should
law
then
tween “charter utilities”
statute,
Except
required.
currently
Approval
as
not
2.
3. The full text of the consent
as
written,
ap-
the commission’s
follows:
vided
is as
public utility
required
proval
is not
Approval
§
to furnish service
in which
furnish service
furnishing
following provisions apply to
furnishing
utility
on Octo-
public
required for the
Approval
not
provided
ber
Approval required.
as
paging
or mobile
radio
of a
no
in subsection 2 and
Approval is not
services.
telecommunications
utility may
of
service set out in
furnish
utility
and dis-
to sell
an electric
any municipality
in or to
2101 in or to
utility.
electric
other
tribute
or is
which another
(2) (1988
Supp.
35-A M.R.S.A.
to furnish a similar service
1995).
of the commission.
(Me.1966),
equally protective
pre-existing
en-
As the Court the 1967 amend response ment was enacted in to our interpretation, adopted by decision The PUC’s Court, previ- in Poland Tel. v. Pine Tree Tel. with Co. & Tel. is inconsistent the PUC’s pertinent of the Pub- 1. In 35 M.R.S.A. 2301 stated in have without the consent part: its service to furnish lic Utilities Corporations or town in or to which for the of ... tele- or to phones ... for the transmission television is furnish- signals corporations purpose ... and for the ser- authorized making, selling, distributing generating, vice. supplying gas ... Co., 218 Tree Tel. & Tel. Poland Tel. Co. v. Pine may orga- town ... within the State ... (Me.1966) (citing 35 M.R.S.A. 488 general incorporation nized Maine], [the under 2301) (emphasis organized ... shall already serving or is 2102. Saco River serve.3 construction of section ous Co., expressly to a “2nd Interpreta Section 2105 refers Tel. Re: Petition Tel. & utility,” requires public hearing Agreement with Standish tion of Boundaries necessity public utility” of a “2nd before con- Telephone Company and to Halt Petition granted under section 2102. sent by Standish Tele New Cable Construction exempts any implicitly “1st utili- The statute 86-156, phone Company, No. Order on Re ty” process requirement. from the consent (Me. 25, 1988), April consideration P.U.C. Contrary to the Court’s grounds, nom. on other Standish vacated sub did not dis- 1967 amendment eliminate the River Tel & Tel. Tel. Co. v. Saco tinction between the “first and the (Me.1989).2 In Saco River the A.2d 478 “second.” interpreted require Commission only to a language applying “second” interpretation is also inconsis- The Court’s utility seeking expand its service into a language with amend- tent territory already in which a “first” ment itself.4 concede Id. serving or was authorized serve. “except incorporates the 1967 amendment explained that in Saco River stylistic changes.” language of few “designed Legisla- to affect 1967 amendment 1967 amendment reveals the rights companies over which those ture’s intent Telephone of its “au- Poland stated the Commission not “to divest” i.e., control, companies munici- thority” second with its service had no ” providing service. pality in which it was then rights.... Commis- I vacate the order would is also inconsistent The Court’s view sion. (1988). Section 35-A M.R.S.A. together with be read procedure to be forth the Section sets *6 utility by when it seeks
followed a second consent, pursuant to section
PUC in which another is
serve an area R.S., 35, § amended. appeal Commission's order Sec. 1. T. 2. On we vacated the territory petition regarding a dismissal of a 35 of the of dispute section 2301 of Title 2nd sentence of grounds issue of the that the following repealed and Revised Statutes judicata. jurisdiction was res See Commission's place thereof: enacted Tel. & Tel. Standish Tel. Co. v. Saco River any pur- or of such for either 555 A.2d organized to do poses, or authorized whether special by or Act this section business under M.R.S.A. 2105 states: 3. Title 35-A association, Legislature, any person or or hearing. as Approval after the consent of shall have provided by no in subsection license, furnish its no the Public Utilities 2103 or any granted permit or franchise in or to which in to public manage person operate, or control a person or association is corporation, 2101 in a named furnish similar is authorized to public where there is service. engaged service or authorized in similar R.S., 35, § Sec- amended. T. Sec. 2. provide until the commission Statutes, as Revised Title 35 of the tion 2301 of declaration, hearing public after has made chapter I of amended interested, public convenience utility. all and further amended public laws necessity require 2nd paragraph, to read adding end of a new at the hearing. The com- 2. Declaration without follows: mission, pub- may make a declaration without paragraph first sentence of the utility serving The 2nd hearing, appears if it lic serve, seeking ap- to shall provide proval from the commission association of to receive ser- customer or customers which such or town seeking approval agree vice furnish- serve should Act. of this effective date services on the 7, 1967 Effective pertinent provisions 1967 amend- 4. (emphasis ch. 279 ment state: