*1 Stroudsburg, e.g., Pansy Borough entry v. is: (3rd Cir.1994) (newspaper could 23 F.3d 772 Judgment affirmed. purpose modifying intervene for limited vacating confidentiality after un- order even concurring. parties long derlying dispute has between the settled). been nonparty for a

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- 218 A.2d 487 in which read construed an antecedent to section titlements. general M.R.S.A. 2301.1 Poland a law Although grandfather clause is not free was both ambiguity, from we defer the Commission. 487-88, Gray, Town of 218 A.2d at and actu reasonable, Not is its it is ally serving portion legis thereof when the plain language harmonious with the more authority lature created a charter (1). subparagraph County. all of serve Cumberland entry is: seeking obtaining Without the consent PUC, utility began in 1927 the Public Order Utilities Commission serving Gray. a different area Id. at 488. affirmed. general In 1966 the wanted Gray into that area because ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, previously given had the PUC JJ., LIPEZ, concurring. RUDMAN to the charter DANA, Justice, dissenting. utility sought to oust the charter from that area. Id. at 487. respectfully today I dissent. The Court (1988 interprets 35-A M.R.S.A We held Supp.1995) section 2301 did not to charter utilities. of its signal Id. As a serve, we ob- prior without the *5 orderly system served “a neat and Commission, Public the Utilities the bal- public utility regulation covering of a municipality partially ance of a that it was [municipality] second in a in 8, 1967, serving notwithstanding on October public utility engaged in which there is a amendment, 2 the text of section of the 1967 similar should authorized therefor” now codified in section requirement to charter vides: general as well as law utilities. Id. utilities provision] ... operate [This shall not at 490. any corporation, person or associa- Legislature responded signal The to our tion of to furnish in by enacting 1967 at the amendment here city or in town which such By Legislature issue. its terms the intended or association is services to eliminate the distinction between “charter” on the effective date of this Act. respect with law” utilities the Apparently, ch. 279. in the Court’s forth, requirement. consent From that time 2102(2) view, only absolves a if a or a either seeking from the PUC’s consent to continue utility in a mu- wanted commence service 8, 1967, serve customers. nicipality was which another then serving "While an area that it was authorized providing utility would the second Legislature, why to serve the would a By enacting need PUC’s the the consent. utility suspect might that it the need consent clause, however, grandfather Legislature’s agent to continue that expansion rights of sought preserve service? within a charter utilities providing which it was then some service. indicates,

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: