Legal Opinion · Dissent
Public Advocate v. Public Utilities Commission
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided September 28, 1998Published
1DissentSaufley, Justice
[¶ 25] Because I conclude that the Basic-Service Calling Area rule, M.P.U.C. Reg. 65-407, ch. 204 (June 25, 1994), constitutes retroactive ratemaking and that its promulgation was beyond the statutory authority of the Maine Public Utilities Commission, I must respectfully dissent.
[¶ 26] “It is axiomatic that ‘the powers of the Public Utilities Commission are derived wholly from statute.’ ” New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Public Utils. Comm’n, 362 A.2d 741, 753 (Me.1976) (NET II) (citing Stoddard v. Public Utils. Comm’n, 137 Me. 320, 19 A.2d 427, 428 (1941)). Thus, when reviewing the actions of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Narragansett Electric Co. v. BurkeSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1980
- New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1976
- Georgia Ry. & Power Co. v. Railroad CommissionDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1922
- Stoddard v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1941
- New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.