MAINESUPREMEJUDICIALCOURT ReporterofDecisionsDecision: 2020ME34Docket: PUC-19-182Argued: December6,2019Decided: March17,2020Panel: SAUFLEY,C.J.,andGORMAN,JABAR,HUMPHREY,andHJELM,JJ.*
NEXTERAENERGYRESOURCES,LLCv.
MAINEPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONetal.JABAR,J.
[¶1]NextEraEnergyResources,LLC,appealsfromanorderoftheMaine
PublicUtilitiesCommissiongrantingCentralMainePowerCompany’s (CMP)
petition for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) for the
constructionandoperationoftheNewEnglandCleanEnergyConnect(NECEC)
project.TheNECECprojectisa145.3-miletransmissionline,proposedtorun
from the Maine-Quebec border in Beattie Township to Lewiston, that will
deliver1,200megawattsofelectricityfromQuebectotheNewEnglandControl
* JusticeHjelmsatatoralargumentandparticipated in the initialconferencewhilehewasa
Justice,and,onorderoftheChiefJustice,wasauthorizedtocontinuehisparticipationinhiscapacityasanActiveRetiredJustice.
JusticeMeadsatatoralargumentandparticipatedintheCourt’sinitialconferenceregardingthisopinionimmediatelyfollowingtheoralargumentbutdidnotparticipatefurtherinthedevelopmentoftheopinion.
2
Area.WediscernnoerrorintheCommission’sdeterminationthattheNECEC
projectmeetstheapplicablestatutorystandardsforaCPCNorinitsdecisionto
approve thestipulation. Weaffirmthedecisionof theMainePublicUtilities
Commission.
I.BACKGROUND
[¶2]PursuanttoanenactmentoftheMassachusettsLegislaturein2008,
everydistributioncompanywithinMassachusettswasrequiredtosolicitand
enter into cost-effective long-termcontracts for clean-energygeneration. In
response to the Massachusetts electric distribution companies’ and
MassachusettsDepartmentofEnergyResources’requestforproposalsseeking
bidsforcleanenergy,CMPandHydroRenewableEnergyInc.,aU.S.affiliateof
Hydro-Quebec,1submittedajointbidfortheNECECproject.
[¶3] On September 27, 2017, in anticipation of Massachusetts’s
January25,2018,deadlinetoselectthewinningbid,CMPfiledapetitionwith
the Commission for a CPCN for the NECEC project. See 35-AM.R.S. §3132
(2018); 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 330 (2012). The petition described the NECEC
projectas“ahighvoltagedirectcurrent(HVDC)transmissionsolutioncapable
1Hydro-QuebecsubsequentlytransferreditsinterestintheprojecttoH.Q.EnergyServices(U.S.)
Inc. (HQUS),oneofitsexistingU.S.affiliates. AsHydroRenewableEnergy Inc.’ssuccessor,HQUSservesasthecounterpartyforcontractualarrangementsunderlyingtheNECECproject.
3
ofdelivering1,200[megawatts]ofelectricityfromQuebectotheNewEngland
Control Area.” CMP asserted in its petition that the NECEC would “be
developed, constructed and operated by CMP in Maine at no cost to Maine
electricitycustomers.”
[¶4]Uponreceivingthepetition,theCommission’shearingexaminers2
issued a “Notice of Proceeding” to provide all interested persons with the
opportunity to file petitions for intervention by October 13, 2017. The
examiners granted seven timely-filed petitions to intervene, including those
filedbytheappelleesinthismatter,theOfficeofthePublicAdvocateandthe
IndustrialEnergyConsumerGroup.3
[¶5] In February 2018, after the Commission proceeding was a few
monthsunderway,CMPwasnotifiedthattheNECECprojecthadbeenselected
as the winning bid.4 Shortly thereafter, the Commission received many
2 Hearing examiners are Commission staff assigned to oversee a case. Two examinerswere
assignedtothisproceeding.
3TheConservationLawFoundation,DorothyKelly,theMaineRenewableEnergyAssociation,theNaturalResourcesCouncilofMaine,andWesternMountainsandRiversCorporationalsotimelyfiledpetitionstointervene.
4 TheNECECwasoriginallyselectedasthealternatewinningbid,butbecamethewinningbidafteranecessarysitingpermitfortheoriginalwinningbid,anall-hydroelectricbid,wasdeniedinNewHampshire.
4
late-filed petitions to intervene.5 NextEra filed its petition to intervene in
March2018,assertingthatitmaybesubstantiallyanddirectlyaffectedbythe
proceedingbecauseitindirectlyownsthreeexistingenergystationsinMaine,
aswellasanumberofwind,solar,andstorageprojectsunderdevelopmentin
the state. Notwithstanding NextEra’s late filing, the examiners agreed that
NextErawould be substantially and directly affected by the outcome of the
proceedingandthereforegrantedNextEradiscretionaryintervenorstatus.
[¶6] Thevolumeofdata requests and testimony filedbyover twenty
intervenors was substantial, leading the examiners to schedule additional
conferences and rebuttal phases to the proceeding. Technical conferences
continued through thesummerof2018 into the fall. CMPandNextEraboth
presented expert testimony. Throughout the course of the proceeding, the
Commissionheldthreepublicwitnesshearingsandreceivedover1,350public
comments.6
5 In addition toNextEra, the followingparties submitted late-filedpetitions to intervene: the
Governor’sEnergyOffice;RENEWNortheast,Inc.;CalpineCorporation,VistraEnergyCorporation,andBucksportGeneration,LLC(collectively,thegeneratorintervenors);theAcadiaCenter;Friendsof MaineMountains; ReEnergy Biomass Operations LLC; International Brotherhood of ElectricalWorkersLocalUnion104;CityofLewiston;TownofCaratunk;MaineChamberofCommerce;Townof Farmington;GreaterFranklinDevelopmentCouncil; TroutUnlimited; Former SenatorThomasSaviello; Darryl Wood; Town of Alna; Town of Wilton; Town of New Sharon; Old Canada RoadNationalScenicByway,Inc.;TownofJackman;andTerryBrann.Allpetitionsweregrantedoneitheramandatoryordiscretionarybasis.
6PublicwitnesshearingswereheldinFarmingtonandtheForksPlantationinSeptember2018.An additional public witness hearing was held in the Commission’s Hallowell hearing room in
5
[¶7] Six evidentiary hearings were held in October 2018 and
January2019,7followingwhichthepartiesbriefedspecificquestionsposedby
theexaminers.
[¶8]Astheproceedingprogressed,anumberoftheparties—including
CMP—engaged in negotiations and ultimately reached a stipulation.8 See
65-407C.M.R. ch. 110, §8(D) (2012). The stipulationwas joinedby eleven
parties, including CMP, theOffice of the Public Advocate, and the Industrial
Energy Consumer Group. See infra ¶ 39. The thirty-eight-page stipulation
requiredtheprojecttoprovidemyriadbenefitstoratepayersandtheStateas
conditions to the recommended Commission approval of the stipulated
findingsandissuanceoftheCPCN.9Thestipulatingpartiesagreedthata“public
October2018.ThemajorityofthepubliccommentstheCommissionreceivedwereinoppositiontotheNECECproject—largelyraisingenvironmental,scenic,andtourism-relatedconcerns.
7 OnOctober21,2018,NextErafiledamotiontosuspendthehearingsduetoCMP’sfailuretoproducedocumentsasordered. TheexaminersgrantedNextEra’smotiononOctober26,therebycancelingthenextthreescheduledhearings.
8InaccordancewiththeCommission’srules,“[t]heCommissionmaydisposeofallorpartofanyadjudicatoryproceedingbyapprovingastipulationofoneormoreissuesenteredintobetweentwoormoreparties.”65-407C.M.R.ch.110,§8(D)(2012).Astipulationisanagreementreachedbyparties through settlement negotiations in the course of commission proceedings. See generally65-407C.M.R.ch.110,§8(2012).
9Intermsofeconomicbenefits,thestipulationprovidesformorethan$140millioninratepayerbenefits,$50millioninbenefitsforlowincomecustomers,andover$57millionincommunityandstate-widebenefits—totalingalmost$250millionofadditionalfinancialbenefitsforMaine.Withtheexception of certain transmission rate credits, education grant funding, and funding for electricvehiclerebates, these fundingcommitmentsareconditionedontheNECECachievingcommercialoperation.
6
need”existsfortheNECECprojectandthatconstructionoftheNECECproject
isinthepublicinterest.AhearingonthestipulationwasheldonMarch7,2019.
[¶9]OnMarch29,2019,thehearingexaminersissueda162-pagereport
containing their recommendations. The examiners concluded that,
independent of the stipulation, the NECEC meets the applicable statutory
standards for a CPCN, and they recommended approval of CMP’s Petition.
Although not necessary to their finding of public need, the examiners
determined that the beneficial provisions described in the stipulation
augmentedtheproject’sbenefitsandlikewiserecommendedapprovalofthe
stipulation. A number of parties, including NextEra, filed comments and
exceptionstothehearingexaminers’report.
[¶10]Inthe100-pageorderdatedMay3,2019,theCommissionadopted
the recommendations and findings of the examiners’ report and concluded,
interalia,that(1)theNECECprojectmeetsthestatutorypublicneedstandard
and is in the public interest; and (2) the stipulation satisfies the approval
criteriasetforthintheCommission’srules.Thecommissionersunanimously
voted to grantCMP a certificateofpublic convenience andnecessity for the
7
constructionandoperation—allatnocosttoMaineelectricitycustomers—of
theNewEnglandCleanEnergyConnectProject.10
[¶11] NextEra timely appealed. See35-AM.R.S. § 1320 (2018);M.R.
App.P.2B.
II.DISCUSSION
[¶12] Inthisappeal,NextEraclaimsthattheCommission(1)erredby
failing to require CMP to file the results of an independent investigation
regardingtheuseofnontransmissionalternatives;(2)erredinitsconstruction
andapplicationof35-AM.R.S.§3132(6)(2018);and(3)abuseditsdiscretion
inapprovingthestipulation.Beforeweaddressthesearguments,weaddress
the preliminary matter of whether NextEra has standing to appeal the
Commission’sorder.
A. NextEra’sStandingtoAppeal
[¶13] The Industrial Energy Consumer Group contends that NextEra
lacks standing to bring this appeal.11 “The right to appeal from an
administrativedecisionisgovernedbystatute.Whetherapartyhasstanding
10Oneofthecommissionersfiledaseparateopinionbutjoinedintheoutcome.
11 NextEra contends that this argument was not preserved. However, standing is “an issuecognizableatanystageofalegalproceeding,”includingonappeal.BankofAmerica,N.A.v.Greenleaf,2015ME127,¶8,124A.3d1122.
8
dependsonthewordingofthespecificstatuteinvolved.”Nelsonv.Bayroot,LLC,
2008ME91,¶9,953A.2d378(citationomitted).
[¶14] Section1320governs thisCourt’s reviewofCommission action
andgrantsstatutorystandingtoappealto“[a]nypersonwhohasparticipated
incommissionproceedings,andwhoisadverselyaffectedbythefinaldecision
ofthecommission.”35-AM.R.S.§1320(2)(2018).Thereisnoquestionthat
NextEraparticipatedinthecommissionproceedings;therefore,theonlyissue
in dispute iswhether NextEra is “adversely affected” by the order granting
CMP’spetitionfortheNECECproject.Seeid.
[¶15]NextEracontendsthattheorderadverselyaffectsitsMaine-based
wind and solar affiliates in a number of ways. While recognizing that the
Commissionfound“littlemerit”tosomeoftheseconcerns,wearenonetheless
satisfied that NextEra is adversely affected by the Commission’s decision in
otherwaysandthereforesatisfiessection1320’sstandingrequirements.See
id.
B. NontransmissionAlternatives
[¶16] NextEra contends that the Commission failed to follow the
statutory mandates of 35-A M.R.S. § 3132(2-C)(C) (2016),12 which
12 The Commission applied 35-A M.R.S. § 3132(2-D) (2018), the provision addressing NTA
investigationsthatwasineffectatthetimeoftheorder,insteadof35-AM.R.S.§3132(2-C)(C)(2016),
9
unambiguously mandated that CMP include in its petition the results of an
independent third-party investigation into the use of nontransmission
alternatives (NTAs). NextEra contends that, because the statute does not
expressly authorize the Commission to relieve CMP from that mandatory
requirement, CMP’s failure to submit the results of a third-party NTA
investigationisfataltoitspetition.
[¶17]Initsorder,theCommissionconcludedthat“becausethereisno
NTAthatcanfeasiblysubstitutefortheNECEC,thestatutedoesnotrequirethat
an independent analysis of the costs of potential NTAs be conducted.” The
CommissionstatedthatanNTAcouldnotmeetthepublicneedatalowercost
becausetherewillbenocosttoMainecustomersfortheproposedproject.The
Commission, citingTown ofMadison v. Public Utilities Commission, 682A.2d
231,234(Me.1996),concludedthat,despitetheplainlanguageofthestatute
requiring an NTA investigation, strictly adhering to the statute in this case
wouldleadto“absurdresults.”
[¶18]TheCommission’sconclusionthatrequiringanNTAinvestigation,
apparentlymandatoryunderthestatute,wouldbeabsurdandillogicaldoesnot
repealedbyP.L.2017,ch.201,§3(effectiveNov.1,2017),whichwasineffectatthetimeCMPfileditspetition.WeagreewithNextErathat§3132(2-C)(C)(2016)wastheappropriatestatutefortheCommissiontohaveapplied.SeeTerryv.St.RegisPaperCo.,459A.2d1106,1109(Me.1983).
10
constitute error. The plain language of section 3132(2-C)(C) mandates a
comparison of the transmission line’s total projected costs with the total
projectedcostsofthealternatives.35-AM.R.S.§3132(2-C)(C)(2016),repealed
byP.L. 2017, ch. 201, § 3 (effectiveNov.1, 2017). Additionally, 35-AM.R.S.
§3132(6) requires an analysis to explore less costly alternatives to the
proposedtransmissionline. Becausethisproposedtransmissionlinewillbe
constructedatnocosttoMaineratepayers,however,thereisnologicalreason
to undertake such a comparative cost analysis. In Trask v. Public Utilities
Commission,westatedthattheplainmeaningisonlyapplied“solongasitdoes
notleadtoanabsurd,illogical,orinconsistentresult.”1999ME93,¶7,731
A.2d 430 (quotation marks omitted). Here, the Commission reasonably
determined that reading the statute to require the undertaking and
considerationofafutile investigationintolower-costNTAswouldleadtoan
absurdandillogicalresult.
[¶19]TheCommissiondidnotcommitlegalerrorwhenitdecidedthat,
inthecontextofthisuniqueproceeding,CMPwasnotrequiredtofiletheresults
ofathird-partyinvestigationintonontransmissionalternatives.
11
C. PublicNeedStandard
[¶20] Next, NextEra contends that the Commissionmisconstrued the
plainandunambiguous languageof35-AM.R.S.§3132and failed tocomply
with the statutory scheme, including the statute’s mandate directing the
CommissiontoidentifyapublicneedfortheNECECproject.BecauseNextEra
is the party challenging the Commission’s decision, it has “the burden of
showingthatthe[Commission]’sactionwasarbitraryorbasedonanerrorof
law.”Cent.MainePowerCo.v.Pub.Utils.Comm’n,2014ME56,¶19,90A.3d
451(quotationmarksomitted).
[¶21]Section3132(6)requirestheCommissiontomakespecificfindings
regardingthe“publicneed”foraproposedtransmissionline,butthestatute
doesnotdefine“publicneed.”13
1. Interpreting“PublicNeed”
[¶22] We apply a two-part inquiry “[w]hen reviewing an agency’s
interpretationofastatutethatisbothadministeredbytheagencyandwithin
the agency’s expertise.” CompetitiveEnergy Servs. LLC v. Pub.Utils. Comm’n,
13NextEraalsoassertsthattheCommissionfailedtoidentifyapublicneedforacertainnumber
ofmegawattsofenergy,notcontracted for, that theNECEC iscapableofdelivering. Because thestatuterequiresadeterminationofpublicneedonlyforthetransmissionlineitself,andnotforitsparticularcapacity,wefindthisargumenttobeunpersuasiveanddonotaddressitfurther.
12
2003ME12,¶15,818A.2d1039. First,wedeterminedenovowhetherthe
statuteisambiguous.Id.Next,ifthestatuteisunambiguousweapplyitsplain
meaning,but if it isambiguouswe“reviewtheCommission’sconstructionof
the ambiguous statute for reasonableness.” Id. “Statutory language is
considered ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to different
interpretations.”Scammanv.Shaw’sSupermarkets,Inc.,2017ME41,¶14,157
A.3d223(quotationmarksomitted).
[¶23]Section3132provides,inpart,that“apersonmaynotconstruct
anytransmissionline...unlessthecommissionhasissuedacertificateofpublic
convenience and necessity approving construction.” Pursuant to section
3132(6),“thecommissionshallmakespecificfindingswithregardtothepublic
needfortheproposedtransmissionline. . . . [I]fthecommissionfindsthata
publicneedexists,afterconsideringwhethertheneedcanbeeconomicallyand
reliablymetusingnontransmissionalternatives, itshall issueacertificateof
publicconvenienceandnecessityforthetransmissionline.”(Emphasisadded.)
Althoughsection3132(6)doesnotdefine“publicneed,”itdoesatleastprovide
factorsfortheCommissiontoconsidertodeterminepublicneed:
Indeterminingpublicneed,thecommissionshall,ataminimum,take intoaccounteconomics, reliability,publichealth andsafety,scenic, historic and recreational values, state renewable energygenerationgoals,theproximityoftheproposedtransmissionline
13
to inhabited dwellings and alternatives to construction of thetransmission line, including energy conservation, distributedgenerationorloadmanagement.[¶24] Furthermore, the Commission rules do define “public need.”
Chapter330ofthoserulesestablishesfilingrequirementspursuanttosection
3132,andsection9(A)ofChapter330setsforththestandardsforgrantinga
CPCN,directingtheCommissiontomakespecific findingswithregardtothe
needfortheproposedtransmissionlineinaccordancewith3132(6).65-407
C.M.R. ch. 330, §9(A). Section 9(B) of Chapter 330 is titled “Public Need
Defined.”Itstates:
The Commission establishes public need by determining thatratepayerswillbenefitbytheproposedtransmissionline.Benefitsaredeterminedbasedupontheelectricalneedfortheline,takingintoaccount[thesection3132(6)factors]....Costisanimportantconsideration,butpublicneedcanbeestablished foraproposedtransmission line that is not the least cost alternative becauseaesthetic,environmentalorotherfactorsjustifyareasonablecostincrease.
Id.§9(B)(emphasisadded).
[¶25] The Commission interpreted the public need standard as
“essentially a general standard of meeting the public interest,” requiring a
carefulweighingof theproject’sbenefits and costs toMaine ratepayers and
residents.TheCommissioncontendsthat,“[u]nderthecircumstancesofthis
proceeding,” its applicationof thepublicneed standardwas consistentwith
14
section 3132(6) and Chapter 330. CMPmaintains that the statute does not
plainly compel a contrary result because the Commission’s “comparison of
costsandbenefitstoMaineandMaineratepayersispreciselywhatisrequired
inthepublicneedanalysis,asreflected insection3132(6),Chapter330,and
[this] Court’s previous definition of public necessity and convenience.” See
EnhancedCommc’nsofN.NewEnglandv.Pub.Utils.Comm’n,2017ME178,¶11
n.4,169A.3d408.
[¶26]Giventhebreadthoftheconceptof“publicneed”combinedwith
the absence of any legislative definition, wemust conclude that the term is
ambiguous,andwecannotsaythattheCommissionerredasmatteroflawby
concluding that the term “public need” is a general standard ofmeeting the
public interest. “An agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute it
administers is reviewedwith great deference andwill be upheld unless the
statuteplainlycompelsacontraryresult.”Cent.MainePowerCo.,2014ME56,
¶ 18, 90 A.3d 451 (quotationmarks omitted); see also Enhanced Commc’ns,
2017ME178,¶7,169A.3d408.TheCommission’sinterpretationofitsown
rules, regulations and procedures is similarly entitled to considerable
deference.EnhancedCommc’ns,2017ME178,¶7,169A.3d408;Cent.Maine
PowerCo.,2014ME56,¶18,90A.3d451.
15
[¶27] The Commission’s definition is consistent with its rules, the
legislative intent reflected in the statute, and Maine jurisprudence. See
EnhancedCommc’ns,2017ME178,¶11n.4,169A.3d408.Inthiscontext,the
Commission’sinterpretationoftheterm“publicneed”andthemannerinwhich
itistobedeterminedwasnoterror.
2. ApplicationofSection3132(6)
[¶28]WenowconsiderwhethertherecordsupportstheCommission’s
findingof apublicneed. Section3132(6) requires theCommission tomake
specific findingswithregard to thepublicneed foraproposed transmission
line. “Indeterminingpublicneed,theCommissionshall,ataminimum,take
intoaccounteconomics,reliability,publichealthandsafety,scenic,historicand
recreationalvalues,staterenewableenergygenerationgoals,theproximityof
theproposedtransmissionlinetoinhabiteddwellingsandalternativestothe
constructionofthetransmissionline....”35-AM.R.S.§3132(6).
[¶29]InadditiontoitsgeneralobjectiontotheCommission’sfindingof
apublicneedpursuanttosection3132(6),NextEraspecificallycontendsthat
the Commission failed to properly address Maine’s renewable energy
generationgoalsand theNECEC’sadverse impactonscenicandrecreational
values.
16
[¶30]Initscomprehensiveorder,theCommissiondiscussedthefactors
setoutinsection3132(6),includingtheissuesraisedbyNextEraconcerning
scenicandrecreationalvaluesandMaine’srenewableenergygenerationgoals.
The Commission found that the value to Maine resulting from the NECEC’s
energypricesuppressioneffectwouldamountto$14-$44millionannually,14
and capacity market price reduction for Maine residents in the amount of
$19million annually over the first ten years. It found that there would be
enhancementstotransmissionreliabilityandsupplyreliabilityanddiversity.
The Commission also found that the project would result in a reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions. Further, it found that the project would have a
positiveimpactonMaine’sgrossdomesticproduct,averaging$94-$98million
duringtheproject’sconstructionperiod.Allofthesefindingsaresupportedby
significantrecordevidence.
14TheCommission’sorderincludesachartcontainingasummaryofthebenefitstoMaineofthe
NECECandthestipulationprovisions.SeeCentralMainePowerCompany,RequestforApprovalofCPCNfortheNewEnglandCleanEnergyConnectConsistingoftheConstructionofa1,200MWHVDCTransmission Line from the Quebec-Maine Border to Lewiston (NECEC) and Related NetworkUpgrades, No. 2017-232, Order Granting Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity andApprovingStipulationat7(Me.P.U.C.May3,2019). ThevaluetoMaineofthewholesalemarketeffectsisestimatedatbetween$200millionand$500million,theannualmacroeconomiceffectstoMaineareestimatedtobeupwardsof$125million,anditisestimatedthatregionalcarbonemissionswillbereducedby3.0-3.6millionmetrictonsannually.Seeid.
17
a. AdverseImpact
[¶31] There is no dispute that the Commission found that the
transmission linewould have an adverse impact on scenic and recreational
values; tourism; and local economies. However, NextEra contends that the
Commission abused its discretion by deferring to the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Land Use Planning Commission
(LUPC)ontheissueofmitigationoftheseadverseimpacts.NextEradoesnot
argue that the Commission failed to consider the impact on scenic and
recreational values—only that it did not properly considermitigation. This
argumentisunpersuasive.
[¶32]Indeterminingpublicneed,theCommissionmusttakescenicand
recreationalvaluesintoaccount.See35-AM.R.S.§3132(6).Section3132(6)
also provides that the Commission “shall . . . consider the findings of the
DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.” NextEraasserts that “there isno
language in the statutory scheme of [s]ection 3132 that authorizes the
Commission to delegate the consideration of the mitigation measures to
another state agency.” While the Commission recognized that it maintains
coextensivejurisdictionwiththeDEPandtheLUPCwithregardtoanyimpact
18
on scenic and recreational values, it didnotdefer to thoseagencies its own
considerationpursuanttosection3132(6).
[¶33] Following the mandates of section 3132(6), the Commission
properly considered scenic and recreational values and concluded that they
wouldbeadverselyimpactedbytheNECECproject.ThattheCommissiondid
not undertake consideration of any mitigation of those adverse impacts is
immaterialbecausethestatuteimposesnosuchobligationontheCommission.
Seeid.WerejectNextEra’sargumentonthispoint.
b. StateRenewableEnergyGenerationGoals
[¶34]Section3132(6)alsorequirestheCommissiontoconsiderMaine’s
renewable energygenerationgoals. TheCommission found that theNECEC
projectwouldnotadverselyimpactthosegoals.
[¶35] NextEraposits that theCommissionerredasamatterof law in
relegatingtheconsiderationoftheState’srenewableenergygenerationgoals
to a weighing of benefits and costs. NextEra asserts that the Commission
misinterpreted the relevant statutes andmade erroneous factual findings in
lightofthatmisinterpretation.15
15 NextEra also contends that theCommission failed tomake findings regarding theNECEC’s
high-voltagedirect-currentdesign,asopposedtoanalternating-currentdesign,andassertsthattheCommission could have conditioned the CPCN on an alternative NECEC design that would usealternating current technology. This argument fails formyriad reasons, oneofwhich is that the
19
[¶36]Assetforthintherelevantstatutoryprovisions,16theCommission
determined that the renewable energy generation goals to be considered
includethepromotionofadequate,reliable,anddiversesourcesofelectricity
supply,andthereductioningreenhousegasemissions.TheCommissionalso
concludedthattheMaineSolarEnergyAct,35-AM.R.S.§§3471-3474(2018),
andtheMaineWindEnergyAct,35-AM.R.S.§§3401-3404(2018),bearonthe
considerationofrenewableenergygenerationgoalsbyimplementingastate
policyofencouragingappropriately-sitedwindandsolarenergydevelopment,
andthereforemustbeconsideredaspartoftheanalysisofrenewableenergy
generationgoalspursuanttosection3132(6).
[¶37] The Commission considered the goals of renewable energy
generationaspartofitssection3132(6)analysis.Indoingso,theCommission
found that the NECEC project will result in incremental hydroelectric
NECECprojectasproposedwith thedirect-currentdesignwasselectedas thewinningbidandaseparateproposalusinganalternating-currentdesignwasnot.Additionally,theCommissionfoundthat the NECEC project, as designed with direct current technology, would not hinder Maine’srenewableenergygoalsandmayevenfacilitaterenewableenergydevelopment.Thesefindingsaresupportedbysubstantialrecordevidence.
16See35-AM.R.S.§3210(1)(2018);38M.R.S.§631(1)(2018).TheCommissionexplainedthatMaine’srenewable-energyportfoliostandardsaregovernedby35-AM.R.S.§3210(1),whichstates:
InordertoensureanadequateandreliablesupplyofelectricityforMaineresidentsandtoencouragetheuseofrenewable,efficientandindigenousresources,itisthepolicyof thisState to encourage the generationof electricity from renewable andefficient sources and todiversify electricityproductiononwhich residentsof thisStaterelyinamannerconsistentwiththissection.
20
generation;willreducegreenhousegasemissionsintheregion;willnothinder
Maine’s progress towards meeting its statutory renewable energy portfolio
requirementsandsolarandwindenergygoals;maybenefitfuturerenewable
energygenerationprojectsasaresultoftheupgradesthatISONewEngland
(ISO-NE)17hasalready identifiedasnecessary to the interconnectionofnew
renewable energy generation in western and northernMaine; will have no
impactonanyproposedrenewableenergygenerationprojects inMainethat
have a better interconnection queue position;18 and has the potential to
facilitaterenewablegeneration inMainebyproviding foradditional transfer
capacityatnocosttofuturegenerationdevelopers.Thesefactualfindingsare
supportedby substantial evidence in the record. SeeFriedmanv. Pub.Utils.
Comm’n,2016ME19,¶10,132A.3d183.
[¶38] Section 3132(6) requires only that the Commission take into
accountstaterenewableenergygenerationgoals—itdoesnotspecifyhowthe
17ISO-NEistheregionaltransmissionorganizationauthorizedbytheFederalEnergyRegulatory
CommissiontooperateNewEngland’spowergrid,administerNewEngland’swholesale-electricitymarkets,andensurethatNewEngland’selectricityneedsaremetthroughpower-systemplanning.SeeOurThreeCriticalRoles,ISONewEngland,https://www.iso-ne.com/about/what-we-do/three-roles(lastvisitedMarch12,2020).
18 “The ISO New England Interconnection Queue lists the current status of requests for theinterconnection of new or uprated (increased capacity) generating facilities in New England.”Interconnection Request Queue, ISO New England, https://www.iso-ne.com/system-planning/transmission-planning/interconnection-request-queue/ (last visited March 12, 2020). Queueposition“determinesorderforthepurposesofinterconnectionstudyandcostallocation.”Id.
21
Commission is toconsider thosegoals. Here, theCommissionmadespecific
factualfindingsandconsideredMaine’srenewableenergygenerationgoalsin
light of those findings as part of its overall public need analysis. The
Commission’sconclusionsregardingtheNECECprojectandMaine’sRenewable
EnergyGoalswerereasonableandconsistentwiththelaw.SeePineTreeTel.
&Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 634 A.2d 1302, 1304 (Me.1993) (“The
Commission's decision will not be disturbed if it results from a reasonable
exerciseofdiscretionandissupportedbysubstantialevidenceintherecord.”).
D. TheStipulation
[¶39]Duringthecourseoftheproceeding,CMPnegotiatedastipulation
with a number of the parties, pursuant to Chapter 110, Section 8(D) of the
Commission’sRules.ThestipulationwasjoinedbyCMP,theOfficeofthePublic
Advocate,theIndustrialEnergyConsumerGroup,theGovernor’sEnergyOffice,
theConservationLawFoundation,theAcadiaCenter,theWesternMountains
and Rivers Corporation, the City of Lewiston, the Maine State Chamber of
Commerce, the InternationalBrotherhoodofElectricalWorkersLocalUnion
104, and Friends of Maine Mountains. The thirty-eight-page stipulation
recommendedapprovalsand findingsregarding issuanceof theCPCN,CPCN
conditions,andnontransmissionalternatives. Thestipulatingpartiesagreed
22
that apublicneed exists for theNECECproject and that constructionof the
NECECprojectisinthepublicinterest.
[¶40]TheCommission’srulessetforthfourrequirementsforapproval
ofastipulation,includingthatthestipulatingpartiesrepresenta“sufficiently
broadspectrumofinterests”toensurethatthereisnoappearanceorrealityof
disenfranchisement. 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 110, § 8(D)(7). “Sufficiently broad
spectrumofinterests”isnotdefinedintherules,buthasbeeninterpretedby
theCommissionasprohibitingstipulationswherethesigningpartiesrepresent
only a narrow interest.19 This interpretation is entitled to deference. See
EnhancedCommc’ns,2017ME178,¶7,169A.3d408.
[¶41] WeareunpersuadedbyNextEra’sassertion that thestipulating
partiesdidnotrepresentasufficientlybroadspectrumofinterests.20Here,the
19SeeCentralMainePowerCompanyandPublicServiceofNewHampshire,RequestforCertificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity for theMaine Power Reliability Program Consisting of theConstructionofApproximately350Milesof345kVand115kVTransmissionLines,No.2008-255,Order Approving Stipulation at 20 (Me. P.U.C. June 10, 2010) (“[T]he primary purpose of theCommission’s first stipulation approval criterion . . . is to ensure that the Commission does notapprovestipulationswherethesigningpartiesrepresentonlyanarrowinterest.”);seealsoPublicUtilities Commission, Investigation into Verizon Maine’s Alternative Form of Regulation,No.2005-155, Order Approving Stipulation (Me. P.U.C. Oct. 3, 2007);Public Utilities Commission,InvestigationIntoRegulatoryAlternativesfortheNewEnglandTelephoneandTelegraphCompanyd/b/aNYNEX,No.94-123,Orderat5(Me.P.U.C.March17,1998).
20 NextEra also argues the Commission erred by approving the stipulation because certainprovisions relate toobligationsof entities outsideof theCommission’s jurisdiction. Because theCommission explicitly found that “even without the additional benefits provided by the CPCNConditionsset forthin [the]Stipulation . . . theNECECwouldmeetthestatutorypublicneedand
23
Commission foundthat thesignatories “representacomparablydiverseand
broadspectrumofinterests,”includingtheinterestsofMaineratepayers,large
industrial customers, members of the environmental community, large and
smallbusinesses,electricalworkers,andatleastoneaffectedmunicipality.The
CommissionalsogavesignificantweighttotheGovernor’sparticipationinthe
developmentof and support for thenegotiated stipulation—finding thather
support “enhance[d] the breadth of the spectrum of interests.” Given the
breadthanddiversityoftheinterestsofthesignatoriestothestipulation,the
Commission concluded that there was no appearance or reality of
disenfranchisement. That conclusion is consistent with the Commission’s
precedents interpreting what constitutes a “sufficiently broad spectrum of
interests.”TheCommissiondidnotabuseitsdiscretionwhenitconcludedthat
thestipulationsatisfiedtheapprovalcriteriacontainedinitsrules.See65-407
C.M.R.ch.110,§8(D).
[¶42]AlthoughtheCommissionconcludedthattheprovisionsincluded
in the stipulation “augment the benefits that will be realized by Maine
ratepayers, communities and the environment by funding mechanisms and
publicintereststandardsofTitle35-A,Section3132and,thus,wouldbegrantedaCPCN[,]”wedonotaddressthisargument.
24
programstoprovideraterelieftoMaineratepayers,benefitsfor low-income
customers, and support for a variety of other programs intended to benefit
Mainecommunitiesandtheenvironment,”theCommissiondidnotrelyupon
thestipulationinarrivingatitsdeterminationofpublicneedoritsdecisionto
grant the CPCN.21 Thus, any issue regarding the validity of the stipulation
becomes immaterial given that the Commission’s reasoning rested on
independentaspectsoftherecord.
III.CONCLUSION
[¶43] The Commission followed the proper procedure and there is
sufficientevidenceintherecordtosupportthefindingsitmade.Inshort,the
Commission reasonably interpreted and applied the relevant statutory
mandates in arriving at its decision to grant CMP a certificate of public
convenienceandnecessityfortheNECECProjectandinitsdecisiontoapprove
the stipulation. See 35-A M.R.S. § 3132. NextEra has not shown that the
21Inadditiontotheeconomicbenefitsprovidedbythestipulation,seesupranote9,thestipulation
conditions granting the CPCN on a preference for Maine workers; a commitment to long-termplanningfordecarbonizationintheregion;mitigationoftheNECEC’simpactontransmissionsystemandexistingand futureenergyresources inMaine; thesecuritizationofcertain fundsestablishedthrough the stipulation; and a support agreement for certain commitmentsmade as part of thestipulation. Finally, thestipulationprovides thatCMPwill transferandconveyownershipof theprojecttoNECECTransmissionLLC,awhollyownedsubsidiarywithintheAvangridNetworksfamilythatisnotasubsidiaryofCMP. Inordertoprotectratepayers,thetermsoftheproject’stransferincludearrangementsthatwilleffectivelyseparateCMPfromtherisksassociatedwiththeremainingdevelopmenteffortsandconstructionoftheProject.
25
Commission’sissuanceoftheCPCNorapprovalofthestipulationwasarbitrary
orotherwisebasedonanerroroflaw.SeeCent.MainePowerCo.,2014ME56,
¶25,90A.3d451.
Theentryis:
Order of the Public Utilities Commissionaffirmed.
JerrolA.Crouter,Esq.(orally),andAmyK.Olfene,Esq.,DrummondWoodsum,Portland,forappellantNextEraEnergyResources,LLCMitchellM.Tannenbaum,Esq.(orally),JordanD.McColman,Esq.,andAmyB.Mills, Esq., Maine Public Utilities Commission, Augusta, for appellee MainePublicUtilitiesCommissionAnthonyW.Buxton,Esq.,R.BenjaminBorowski,Esq.,andJosephG.Donahue,Esq.,PretiFlahertyBeliveau&Pachios,LLP,Portland, forappelleeIndustrialEnergyConsumerGroupCatherineR.Connors,Esq.,JaredS.deRosiers,Esq.(orally),andSarahB.Tracy,Esq.,PierceAtwoodLLP,Portland,forappelleeCentralMainePowerCompanyBarryJ.Hobbins,Esq.,OfficeofthePublicAdvocate,Augusta,forappelleeOfficeofthePublicAdvocatePublicUtilitiesCommissioncasenumber2017-00232FORCLERKREFERENCEONLY