MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 20 20 ME 34 Docket: PUC

- 19

- 182 Argued : Dec ember 6 ,	2019 Decided: March	17,	2020 Panel: SAUFLEY,	C.J.,	and GORMAN,	JABAR , HUMPHREY, and	HJELM, JJ. *

NEXTERA	ENERGY	RESOURCES,	LLC

v. MAINE	PUBLIC	UTILITIES	COMMISSION	et	al.
JABAR ,	J. [¶1] NextEra	Energy	Resources,	LLC , appeals	from	an	order		of	the	Maine Public	Utilities	Commission	granting	Central	Maine	Power	Company’s	 (CMP) petition	 for	 a	 certificate	 of	 public	 convenience	 and	 necessity	 (CPCN)	 for	 the construction	and	operation	of	the	New	England	Clean	Energy	Connect	( NECEC)
p roject. The NECEC project is	a	145.3

- mile	transmission	line,	proposed	to	run from	 the	 Maine

- Qu é bec	 border	 in	 Beattie	 Township	 to	 Lewiston,	 that will deliver	1,200 megawatts of	electricity	from	Qu é bec	to	the	New	England	Control

* Justice	Hjelm sat	at	oral	argument	and	participated	in	 the	initial	conference	while	he	was	a Justice,	and,	on	order	of	the	Chief	Justice,	was	authorized	to	continue	his	participation	in	his	capacity as	an Active	Retired	Justice. Justice	Mead	sat	at	oral	argument	and	participated	in	the	Court’s	initial	conference	regarding	this opinion	immediately	following	the	oral	argument	but	did	not	participate	further	in	the	development of	the	opinion.2 Area

. We discern no	error	in	the	Commission’s	determination that	the	NECEC project meets	the	applicable	statutory	standards	for a CPCN or	in	it s decision	to
approve the	 stipulation.		W e affirm	 the	 decision	 of	 the	Maine	Public	Utilit ies
Commission.
I.		BACKGROUND [¶ 2 ] Pursuant	to	an	enactment	of the	Massachusetts	Legislature in	2008, every	distribution	company	within Massachusetts was	required to	solicit	and
enter	into	 cost

- effective	long

- term	 contracts	 for	 clean

- energy	 generation. In response	 to	 the	 Massachusetts electric	 distribution	 companies’	 and Massachusetts	Department	of	Energy	Resources’	request	for	proposals	seeking bids	for	clean	energy,	CMP	and	Hydro	Renewable	Energy	Inc.,	a U.S. affiliate	of Hydro

- Qu é bec, 1 submitted	a	joint	bid	for	the	NECEC	project. [¶ 3 ] On	 September	 27,	 2017,	 in	 anticipation	 of	 Massachusetts’s January 25,	2018 , deadline	to	select	the	winning	bid,	CMP	filed	a	petition with the	 Commission for	 a	 CPCN	 for	 the	 NECEC	 project. See 35

- A M.R.S. § 3132 (2018) ;	 65

- 407	 C.M.R.	 ch.	 330	 (2012).	 	 The p etition	 describe d the	 NECEC project	as	“a	high	voltage	direct	current	(HVDC)	transmission	solution	capable

1 Hydro

- Qu é bec subsequently	transferred its	interest	in the	project	to H.Q.	Energy	Services	(U.S.) I nc.	 (HQUS) , one	of	its	existing	U.S.	affiliates. As Hydro	Renewable	Energy Inc.’s	successor,	HQUS serves as	the	counterparty	for	contractual	arrangements	underlying	the	NECEC project.3 of	delivering	1,200 [megawatts] of	electricity	from	Qu é bec	to	the	New	England Control	 Area.” CMP assert ed	 in	 its	 p etition that the	 NECEC	 would	 “be developed,	 constructed	 and	 operated	 by	 CMP	 in	 Maine	 at no	 cost to	 Maine electricity	customers.” [¶ 4 ] Upon	receiving	the p etition,	t he Commission’s	h earing e xaminers 2 issued	 a “ Notice	 of	 Proceeding ” to provid e all	 interested	 persons	 with	 the opportunity	 to	 file	 petition s for	 intervention by	 October	 13,	 2017. The

e xaminers	 granted	 seven	 timely

- filed	 petitions	 to	 intervene, including those filed	by the appellees	in	this	matter, the Office	of	the	Public	Advocate and	the Industrial	Energy	Consumer	Group. 3 [¶ 5 ] In February	 2018, after	 the	 Commission	 proceeding	 was	 a	 few months	underway, CMP was	notified that the	NECEC project had	been	selected

as the	 winning bid. 4 Shortly	 thereafter, the	 Commission	 received many

2 Hearing e xaminers	 are	 Commission	 staff	 assigned	 to	 oversee	 a	 case .	 	 Two e xaminers	were assigned	to	this	proceeding.

3 T he	Conservation	Law	Foundation,	Dorothy	Kelly,	the	M aine	Renewable	Energy	Association,	the Natural	Resources	Coun ci l	of	Maine,	and	Western	Mountains	and	Rivers	Corporation also	timely	filed petitions to	intervene

.
4 The	NECEC	was originally selected	as	 the	alternate	winning	bid ,	but	became	 the	winning	b id after	a	necessary	siting	permit	for	the original winning	bid , an	all

- hydroelectric	bid ,	was	denied	in New	Hampshire

.4 late

- filed	 petitions	 to	 intervene. 5 NextEra	 filed	 its	 petition	 to	 intervene i n March 2018, assert ing that	it	may	be	substantially	and	directly	affected	by	the proceeding because	it	indirectly	owns	three	existing	energy	stations	in	Maine, as	well	as	a number	of	wind,	solar,	and	storage	projects	under	development	in the	 state

. Notwithstanding NextEra’s late	 filing,	 the e xaminers agreed that
NextEra would	 be	 substantially	 and	 directly	 affected	 by	 the	 outcome	 of	 the proceeding and therefore granted NextEra	discretionary	intervenor	status. [¶ 6 ] The volume	 of data	 requests and	 testimony	 filed	 by over twenty
intervenors was	 substantial, l eading the e xaminers to schedul e additional conferences	 and rebuttal	 phases to	 the	 proceeding

. T echnical	 conferences continued	 through the s ummer	 of	2018 into	 the f all. CMP and NextEra both presented expert testimony

. Throughout	 the	 course	 of	 the proceeding ,	 the Commission	held	three	public	witness	hearings	and	received	over	1,350	public

comments. 6

5 In	 addition	 to	NextEra,	 the	 following	 parties	 submitted	late

- filed	 petitions	 to	intervene: the Governor’s	Energy	Office ; RENEW	Nort heast,	Inc.;	Calpine	Corporation,	Vistra	Energy	Corporation, and	Bucksport	Generation , LLC	( collectively, the	generator	intervenors) ;	the	Acadia	Center;	Friends of	 Maine	 Mountains;	 ReEnergy	 Biomass	 Operations	 LLC;	 International	 Brotherhood	 of	 Electrical Wo rkers	Local	Union	104;	City	of	Lewiston;	Town	of	Caratunk;	Maine	Chamber	of	Commerce;	Town of	 Farmington;	 Greater	 Franklin	Development	 Council;	 Trout	Unlimited;	 Former	 Senator	 Thomas Saviello;	 Darryl	 Wood;	 Town	 of	 Alna;	 Town	 of	 Wilton;	 Town	 of	 New	 Sharon; Old	 Canada	 Road National	Scenic	Byway,	Inc.;	Town	of	Jackman;	and	Terry	Brann. All	petitions	were	granted on	either a	mandatory	or	discretionary	basis

.
6 P ublic	witness	hearings were held in Farmington and	t he	Forks	Plantation	in September	2018. An	 additional	 public	 witness	 hearing	 was	 held	 in the	 Commission’s	 Hallowell	 hearing	 room in5 [¶ 7 ] S ix	 evidentiary	 hearings were held	 in	 October	 2018	 and January 2019, 7 following	which the	parties	briefed	specific	questions	posed	by the e xaminers. [¶ 8 ] As	the	proceeding	progressed,	a	number	of	the	parties

— including
CMP

— engaged	 in	 negotiations	 and	 ultimately	 reached a stipulation

. 8 See 65

- 407	 C.M.R.	 ch.	 110,	 §	 8(D) (2012) .	 	 The s tipulation	was	 joined	 by eleven parties,	 including CMP,	 the Office	 of	 the Public	 Advocate , and	 the	 Industrial Energy	 Consumer	 Group. See	 infra ¶ 39

. T he thirty

- eight

- page s tipulation required	the	project	to provide myriad	benefits	to	ratepayers	and	the	State as conditions	 to	 the	 recommended	 Commission	 approval	 of	 the	 stipulated findings	and	issuance	of	the	CPCN. 9 The	stipulating	parties	agreed	that	a	“public

October	2018

. The	majority of	the	public	comments the	Commission	received	were	in	opposition	to the	NECEC project

— largely	raising	environmental, scenic,	and	tourism

- related	concerns.

7 On	October	21,	2018,	NextEra	filed	a	motion	 to	suspend	the hearings	due	 to CMP’s	failure	 to produce	documents	as	ordered

. The e xaminers	granted	NextEra’s	motion	on	October 26,	thereby canceling	the next	three sch eduled hearings

.
8 In	accordance	with	the	Commission’s	rules,	“[t]he	Commission	may	dispose	of	all	or	part	of	any adjudicatory	proceeding	by	approving	a	stipulation	of	one	or	more	issues	entered	into	between	two or	more	parties.”		65

- 407	C.M.R.	ch.	110, §	8(D) (2012) .		A	stipulation	is	an	agreement	reached	by parties	 through	 settlement	 negotiations	 in	 the	 course	 of	 commission	 proceedings. See	 generally 65

- 407	C.M.R.	ch.	110,	§	8 (2012)

.
9 In	terms	of	economic	benefits,	the	stipulation	provides	for	more than	$140	million	in	ratepayer benefits,	$50	million	in	benefits	for	low	income	customers,	and	over	$57	million	in	community	and state
- wide	benefits

— totaling	almost	$250	million	of	additional	financial	benefits	for	Maine.		With	the exception	 of	 certain	 tr ansmission	 rate	 credits,	 education	 grant	 funding,	 and	 funding	 for	 electric vehicle	 rebates,	 these funding	commitments are	conditioned	on the	NECEC	achieving	commercial operation

.6 need”	exists	for	the	NECEC project and	that	construction	of	the	NECEC project is	in	the	public	intere st.		A	hearing	on	the s tipulation	was	held	on	March	7,	2019. [¶ 9 ] On	March	29,	2019,	the h earing e xaminers	issued	a 162

- page r eport containing	 the ir recommendation s .	 	 The e xaminers concluded	 that, independent	 of	 the s tipulation, the NECEC meets	 the applicable	 statutory standards	 for	 a	 CPCN , and the y recommended approval	 of CMP’s	 Petition

. Alt hough not	 necessary	 to	 th eir finding	 of	 public	 need ,	 the e xaminers determined	 that	 t he beneficial	 provisions described in	 the s tipulation augmented	 the	project’s	benefits and	likewise recommend ed approval	of	 the

s tipulation. A	 number	 of	 parties,	 including	 NextEra,	 filed	 c omments	 and exceptions	to	the h earing e xaminers ’ r eport. [¶1 0 ] In the 100

- page o rder dated	May	3,	2019,	the	Commission adopted the	 recommendations	 and	 findings	 of	 the e xaminers’ r eport	 and concluded, inter	alia ,	that	(1)	the	NECEC project meets	the statutory public	need standard and is	 in	 the public	 interest;	 and	 (2)	 the s tipulation	 satisfies	 the	 approval
criteria set	forth in	the	Commission ’s rules. The c ommissioners	unanimously voted	 to grant	 CMP a	 certificate	 of	 public	 convenience	 and	 necessity for	 the7 construction	and	operation

— all	at	no	cost	to	Maine	electricity	custo mers — of the	New	England	Clean	Energy	Connect	Project

. 10 [¶1 1 ] NextEra timely	 appeal ed

. See 35

- A	 M.R.S.	 §	 1320 (2018) ;	 M.R. App. P.	2 B

. II.		DISCUSSION [¶1 2 ] In	 this	appeal, NextEra claims	 that	 the	Commission (1) erred	by failing to	 require	 CMP	 to	 file	 the	 results	 of	 an	 independent	 investigation regarding	the	use	of n on t ransmission a lternatives;	(2) err ed	in	its	construction and	application	of 35

- A	M.R.S.	§ 3132(6) (2018) ;	and	( 3 )	abused	its	discretion in	approving the s tipulation. Before	we	address	these	arguments,	we	address the	 preliminary	 matter	 of	 whether	 NextEra has standing	 to	 appeal	 the Commission’s o rder

. A. N ext E ra ’ s S tanding to A ppeal [¶1 3 ] T he I ndustrial E nergy C onsumer G roup contends that	 NextEra lacks standing	 to bring	 this appeal. 11 “The	 right	 to	 appeal	 from	 an administrative	decision	is	governed	by	statute.		Whether	a	party	has	standing

10 One	of	the	commissioners	filed	a	separate	opinion	but	joined	in	the	outc ome.

11 NextEra	 contends that this	 argument was	 not	 preserved

. However,	 standing	 is	 “ an	 issue cognizable	at	any	stage	of	a	legal	proceeding , ” including on appeal. Bank	of	America,	N.A.	v.	Greenleaf , 2015	ME	127,	¶	8,	124	A.3d	1122

.8 depends	on	the	wording	of	the	specific	statute	involved.” Nelson	v.	Bayroot,	LLC , 2008	ME	91,	¶ 9,	953	A.2d	378	(citation	omitt ed). [¶1 4 ] Section	 1320	 governs this Court’s review	 of C ommission	 action and grants	statutory	standing to	appeal to “ [a] ny	person	who	has	participated in	commission	proceedings,	and	who	is	adversely	affected	by	the	final	decision of	the	commission

. ” 35

- A	M.R.S.	§	1320(2)	(2018).		There	is	no	question	that NextEra	participated	in	the commission proceedings; therefore, the only issue in	 dispute is	 whether	 NextEra	 is	 “adversely	 affected”	 by	 the o rder	 granting CMP’s	petition	for	the	NECEC	project. See	id

. [¶1 5 ] NextEra contends	that	th e o rder	adversely	affects	its Maine

- based wind	 and	 solar	 affiliates in	 a	 number	 of	 ways

. While	 recognizing	 that	 the
Commission found	“little	merit”	to some of these	concerns , we	are nonetheless satisfied that NextEra	 is adversely	 affected	 by	 the	 Commission’s	 decision in other	ways and therefore satisfies section	1320’s standing	requirements

. See id

. B. N ontransmission A lternatives [¶1 6 ] NextEra	 contends	 that	 the	 Commission	 failed	 to	 follow	 the statutory	 mandates	 of	 35

- A	 M.R.S. §	 3132(2

- C)(C) (201 6 ), 12 which

12 The	 Commission	 applied 35

- A	 M.R.S.	 §	 3132(2

- D)	 (2018),	 the	 provision	 addressing	 NTA investigations	that	was	in	effect	at	the	time	of	the o rder,	instead	of	35

- A	M.R.S.	§	3132(2

- C)(C)	(201 6 ),9 unambiguously	 mandated that CMP	 include in	 its p etition the	 results	 of	 an independent	 third

- party	 investigation	 into	 the	 use	 of	 nontra nsmission 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 investigation is fatal	to its p etition. [¶1 7 ] In	its o rder,	the	Commission	concluded	that	“because	there	is	no NTA	that	can	feasibly	substitute	for	the	NECEC,	the	statute	does	not	require	that an	 independent	 analysis	 of	 the	 costs	 of	 potential	 NTAs	 be	 conducted.” The Commission	stated	that	an	NTA	could	not	meet	the	public	need	at	a	lower	cost because there	will	be no cost	to Maine	customers for the	proposed	project.		The
Commission , citing Town	 of	 Madison	 v.	 Pub lic Util ities Comm issio n ,	 682	 A

. 2d 231,	234	(Me. 1996) , concluded	that,	d espite	the	plain language of	the	statute requiring	 an	 NTA investigation ,	 strictly	 adhering	 to	 the	 statute	 in	 this	 case would	lead	to	“absurd	results

. ” [¶1 8 ] T he	Commission ’s conclusion that	requiring	an	NTA	investigation, apparently	mandatory	under	the	statute,	would	be	absurd and	illogical does	not

repealed	by P.L.	2017,	ch.	201,	§	3	(eff ective Nov.	1,	2017),	wh ich	was	in	effect	at	the	time	CMP	filed its	petition .		We	agree	with	NextEra	that §	3132(2

- C)(C)	(201 6 ) was	the	appropriate	statute	for	the Commission	to	have	applied. See Terry	v.	St.	Regis	Paper	Co., 459	A.2d	1106,	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 t he	 total projected	costs	of	the	alternatives. 35

- A	M.R.S.	§	3132(2

- C)(C)	(201 6 ), repealed by P.L.	 2017,	 ch.	 201,	 §	 3	 (eff ective Nov.	 1,	 2017). Additionally, 35

- A	 M.R.S. § 3132(6) requires a n analysis	 to	 explore	 less	 costly	 alternatives	 to	 the proposed	 transmission	line

. Because	 t his proposed	 transmission	line	will	be constructed	at no cost	to	Maine	ratepayers , however, there	is	no	logical	reason to	 undertake	 such	 a comparative cost	 analysis. In Trask	 v

. Public	 Utilities
Commission , we	stated	that	the	plain meaning is	only	applied	“so	long	as	it	does not	lead	to	an	absurd,	illogical,	or	inconsistent	result.” 1999	ME	93,	¶	7,	731 A.2d	 430 (quotation	 marks	 omitted)

. Here,	 the	 Commission	 reasonably determined	 that reading the statute	 to	 require	 the	 undertaking	 and consideration	of a futile investigation	into	lower

- cost	NTAs	would lead	 to an absurd and	il l ogical result

. [¶ 19 ] T he	Commission	did	not	commit	legal error	when	it	decided	that , in	the	context	of	this	unique	proceeding, CMP	was	not	required	to	file	the	results of	a	third

- party	investigation	into	nontransmission	alternatives.11 C. Public	Need Standard [¶ 2 0 ] Next, NextEra	 contends	 that	 the	 Commission	 misconstrued	 the plain	and	unambiguous	language	 of 35

- A	M.R.S.	 §	3132 and	 failed	 to	comply with	 the	 statutory	 scheme,	 including	 the	 statute’s	 mandate	 directing	 the Commission	to	identify	a	public	need	for the NECEC proj ect .		Because	NextEra is	 the	 party	 challenging	 the	 Commission’s	 decision,	 it	 has	 “the	 burden	 of showing	that	the [Commission] ’ s	action	was	arbitrary	or	based	on	an	error	of law.” Cent.	Maine	Power	Co.	v.	Pub.	Utils.	Comm’n ,	2014	ME	56,	¶	1 9 ,	90	A.3d 451	( quotation	marks omitted). [¶ 2 1 ] Section	3132(6)	requires	the	Commission	to	make	specific	findings regarding	 the	“public	need”	 for	a	proposed	 transmission	line,	but the	statute does	not	define	“public	need.” 13
1. Interpreti ng “ Public	Need ” [¶ 2 2 ] W e	 apply	 a	 two

- part	 inquiry “[ w ] hen	 reviewing	 an	 agency ’ s interpretation	of	a	statute	that	is	both	administered	by	the	agency	and	within the	 agency ’ s	 expertise

. ” Competitive	 Energy	 Servs.	 LLC	 v.	 Pub.	Utils.	 Comm ’ n ,

13 NextEra	also	ass erts	that	the	Commission	failed	to	identify	a	public	need	for a	certain	number of megawatts	of	energy ,	not	contracted	 for, that the	NECEC	is	capable	of	delivering. Because the statute	requires	a	determination	of public	need only	for the	transmission	line	itself, and	not	for	its particular	capacity, we	find	this	argument	to	be	unpersuasive	and	do	not	address	it	further.12 2003	ME	12, ¶ 15,	818	A.2d	1039. First, we	determine de	novo	whether	 the statute	is	ambiguous. Id

. Next, if	the	statute	is	unambiguous	we	apply	its	plain meaning,	but	if it is	ambiguous	we “ review	 the	Commission’s	construction	of the	 ambiguous	 statute	 for	 reasonableness. ” Id

. “Statutory	 language	 is considered	 ambiguous	 if	 it	 is	 reasonably	 susceptible	 to	 different interpretations.” Scamman	v.	Shaw’s	Supermarkets,	Inc. ,	2017	ME	41,	¶	14,	157 A.3d	223	(quotation	marks	omitted). [¶ 2 3 ] Section	3132	provides,	in	part,	that	“a	per son	may	not	construct any	transmission	line	.	.	.	unless	the	commission	has	issued	a	certificate	of	public convenience	 and	 necessity	 approving	 construction.”	 	 Pursuant	 to	 section 3132(6),	“the	commission	shall	make	specific	findings	with	regard	to	the	publ ic need	 for	 the	proposed	 transmission	line.	.	.	. [I]f	 the	commission	 finds	 that	a public	need	exists,	after	considering	whether	the	need	can	be	economically	and reliably	met	using	nontransmission	alternatives,	it shall issue	 a	certificate	 of public	conve nience	and	necessity	for	the	transmission	line

. ”		( E mphasis	added

. ) Although	s ection	3132(6)	does	not	define “ public	need, ” it	does at	least provide factors	for	the	Commission	to	consider	to	determine	public	need : In	determining	public	need,	 the	commission	shall,	at	a	minimum, take	into	account	economics,	 reliability,	public	health	 and	 safety, scenic,	 historic	 and	 recreational	 values,	 state	 renewable	 energy generation	goals,	the	proximity	of	the	proposed	transmissio n	line13 to	 inhabited	 dwellings	 and	 alternatives	 to	 construction	 of	 the transmission	 line,	 including	 energy	 conservation,	 distributed generation	or	load	management. [¶ 2 4 ] Furthermore,	 t he	 Commission	 rules do define “ public	 need. ” Chapter	330	of those rules	establishes	filing	requirements	pursuant	to section
3132 ,	and s ection	9(A)	of	Chapter	330 sets	forth	the	standards	for	granting	a
CPCN , direct ing the	Commission	 to	make	specific	 findings	with	regard	 to	 the need	for	the	proposed	transmission	line	in accordance	with	3132(6). 65

- 407 C.M.R.	 ch. 330 , § 9(A). Section	 9(B) of Chapter	 330 is	 titled	 “Public	 Need Defined

. ” It	states: The	 Commission establishes	 public	 need	 by	 determining	 that ratepayers	will	benefit	by	the	proposed	transmission	line. Benefits are	determined	based	upon	the	electrical	need	for	the	line,	taking into	account	[the section 3132(6)	factors]	.	.	.	.		Cost	is	an	important consideration,	but	public	need	can	be	established	 for	a	proposed transmission	 line	 that	 is	 not	 the	 least	 co st	 alternative	 because aesthetic,	environmental	or	other	factors	justify	a	reasonable	cost increase. Id .	§	9(B)	(emphasis	added). [¶ 2 5 ] The	 Commission	 interpreted	 the	 public	 need	 standard	 as “essentially	 a	 general	 standard	 of	 meeting	 the	 public	 interes t,”	 requiring	 a careful	weighing	 of	 the	 project’s	 benefits	 and	 costs	 to	Maine	 ratepayers	 and residents.		The	Commission	contends	that , “[u]nder	the	circumstances	of	this proceeding , ” its	 application	 of	 the	 public	 need	 standard	was	 consistent	with14 section	 3 132(6)	 and	 Chapter	 330. CMP	 maintains that the	 statute	 does	 not plainly	 compel	 a	 contrary	 result	 because	 the	 Commission’s	 “comparison	 of costs	and	benefits	to	Maine	and	Maine	ratepayers	is	precisely	what	is	required in	 the	public	need	analysis,	as	reflect ed	in	section	3132(6),	Chapter	330,	and [this] Court’s	 previous	 definition	 of	 public	 necessity	 and	 convenience.” See Enhanced	Commc’ns	of	N.	New	England	v.	Pub.	Utils.	Comm’n ,	2017	ME	178,	¶ 11
n.4 ,	169	A.3d	408

. [¶ 2 6 ] Given the	breadth	of	the	concept	of “public	need”	combined	with the	 absence	 of	 any	 legislative	 definition ,	 we	 must conclude that the	 term	 is ambiguous, and we	cannot	say	that	the	Commission	erred	as	matter	of	law	by concluding	 that	 the	 term “ public	 need ” is	 a general standard	 of	 meeting	 the public	 interest. “An	 agency’s	 interpretation	 of	 an	 ambiguous	 statute	 it administers	 is	 reviewed	 with	 great	 deference	 and	 will	 be	 upheld	 unless	 the statute	plainly	compels	a	contrary	result.” Cent.	Maine	Power	Co. ,	2014	ME	56, ¶	 18 ,	 90	 A.3d	 451 ( quotation	 marks omitted); see	 also Enhanced Commc’ns , 2017	ME	178,	¶	7,	169	A.3d	408.		The	Commission’s	interpretation	of	its	own rules,	 regulations	 and	 procedures	 is	 similarly	 entitled	 to	 considerable deference

. Enhanced Commc’ns ,	2017	ME 178,	¶	7,	169	A.3d	408 ; Cent.	Maine
Power	Co. ,	2014	ME	56,	¶	18,	90	A.3d	451

.15 [¶ 2 7 ] The	 Commission’s	 definition	 is	 consistent	 with	 its	 rules, the legislative	 intent	 reflected	 in	 the	 statute,	 and	 Maine	 jurisprudence. See Enhanced Commc’ns ,	2017	ME	178,	¶	11	n.4,	169	A.3d	408. In	this	context, the Commission’s	interpretation	of	the	term “ public	need ” and	the	manner	in	which it	is	to	be	determined	was not	error

. 2. Application	of Section	3132(6) [¶ 2 8 ] We	now	consider	whether	the	record supports	the	Commission ’ s finding	 of	 a	 public	 need. Section	 3132(6)	 requires	 the	 Commission to make specific	 findings	with	 regard	 to	 the	public	need	 for a proposed	 transmission line. “ In	determining	public	need , the	Commission	shall,	at	a	minimum , take
i nto	account	economics,	reliability,	public	health	and	safety,	scenic,	historic	and recreational	values,	state	renewable	energy	generation	goals,	the	proximity	of the	proposed	transmission	line	to	inhabited	dwellings	and	alternatives	to	the construction	of the	transmission	line

.	.	.	. ” 35

- A	M.R.S.	§	3132(6). [¶ 29 ] I n	addition	to	its	general	objection	to	the	Commission’s	finding	of a	public	need	pursuant	to	section	3132(6), NextEra specifically	contends that the	 Commission	 failed	 to properly	 address Maine’s renewable	 energy generation goals and the NECEC’s adverse	impact on scenic	and	 recreational values

.16 [¶ 3 0 ] In its	comprehensive o rder , the	Commission	discussed	the	factors
set	out	in section 3132(6),	including	the	issues	raised	by	NextEra	concerning scenic	and	recreational value s	and	Maine’s	renewable	energy generation goals. The	 Commission	 found	 that	 the value	 to	 Maine	 resulting	 from	 the	 NECEC’s energy	price	suppression	effect	would	amount	t o $14

- $44	million	annually , 14 and capacity	 market	 price	 reduction	 for	 Maine	 residents	 in	 the	 amount	 of $19 million	 annually over	 the first ten years. It	 found	 that	 there	 would	 be enhancements	 to	 transmission	reliability	and	supply	reliability	and	diversity. 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 positive	impact	on	Maine’s gross	domestic	product, averaging	$94

- $98	million during	the	project’s	construction	period

. All	of	these	findings	are	supported	by significant record evidence

.

14 The	Commission’s o rder	includes	a	chart	containing	a	summary	of	the	benefit s	to	Maine	of	the NECEC	and	the s tipul ation	provisions

. See Central	Maine	Power	Company ,	Request	for	Approval	of CPCN	for	the	New	England	Clean	Energy	Connect	Consisting	of	the	Construction	of	a	1,200	MW	HVDC Transmission	 Line	 from	 the	 Qu é bec

- Maine	 Border	 to	 Lewiston	 (NECEC)	 and	 Related	 Netw ork Upgrades, No.	 20 17

- 232 ,	 Order Granting	 Certificate	 of	 Public	 Convenience	 and	 Necessity	 and Approving	Stipulation	at 7 ( Me.	P.U.C. May	3 ,	201 9 )

. The	 value	to	Maine	of	the	wholesale	market effects	is	estimated at between $200	million	and	$500	million ,	t he	annual	macroeconomic	effects	to Maine	are	estimated	to	be	upwards	of	$125	million,	and	it	is	estimated	that	regional	carbon	emissions will	be	reduced	by	3.0

- 3.6	million	metric	tons	annually. See	id.17

a. Adverse	Impact [¶ 3 1 ] The re	 is	 no	 dispute	 that	 the Commission found that	 the transmission	 line	 would	 have an	 adverse impact	 on	 scenic and	 recreational values ; tourism ; and	 local	 econom ies

. 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 ) on the	issue	of	mitigation	of these	adverse	impacts .		NextEra	does	not
argue that the	 Commission	 failed	 to	 consider	 the	 impact	 on	 scenic and recreational	 values

— only	 that	 it	 did not properly cons ider	 mitigation. This argument	is	unpersuasive. [¶ 3 2 ] In	determining	public	need,	the	Commission	must	take scenic	and recreational	values into	account. See 35

- A	M.R.S.	§	3132(6).		Section	3132(6) also	 provides	 that	 the Commission “shall	 .	 .	 .	 consider	 the	 findings	 of	 the Department	 of	 Environmental	 Protection.”	 	NextEra asserts that “there	is	 no language	 in	 the	 statutory	 scheme	 of [s] ection	 3132	 that	 authorizes	 the Commission	 to	 delegate	 the	 consideration	 of	 the	 mitigation	 measure s	 to another	 state	 agency .” While the Commission recognized that it maintains coextensive	jurisdiction	with	the	DEP	and	the	LUPC	with	regard	to any impact18 on	 scenic and	 recreational	 values,	it	 did	 not	 defer	 to	 those	 agencies	 its	 own consideration	pursuant	to secti on 3132(6). [¶ 3 3 ] Following	 the	 mandates	 of	 section	 3132(6),	 t he	 Commission
proper ly	 considered	 scenic	 and	 recreational	 values	 and	 concluded	 that	 they would	be	adversely	impacted	by	the	NECEC project

. That	the	Commission	did not	 undertake consideration	 of	 any mitigation	 of	 those	 adverse	 impacts	 is immaterial because	the	statute	imposes	no	such	obligation	on	the	Commission. See	id

. We	reject	NextEra’s argument	on	this	point. b. State	Renewable	Energy Generation Goals [¶ 3 4 ] Section 3132(6) also requires the	Commission to consider	Maine’s renewable energy generation goals. The	 Commission	 found	 that	 the	NECEC
p roject	would	not	adversely	impact those goals. [¶ 3 5 ] NextEra posits that	 the	Commission	erred	as	a	matter	 of	law	in relegating	the	consideration	of	the State’s renewable	energy generation goals to	 a	 weighing	 of	 benefits	 and	 costs. NextEra	 asserts	 that	 the Commission misinterpreted	 the	 relevant	 statutes	 and	made	 erroneous	 factual	 findings	in light	of	that	misinterpretation. 15

15 NextEra	 also	 contends	 that	 the	 Commission	 failed	 to	make	 findings	 regarding	 the	NECEC’s high

- voltage	direct

- current design,	as	opposed	to an	alternating

- current design,	and	asserts that the Commission	 could	 have	 conditioned	 the	 CPCN	 on	 an	 alternative	 NEC EC	 design	 that	 would	 use alternating current technology.	 	 This	 argument	 fails	 for	myriad	 reasons,	 one	 of	which	is	 that	 the19 [¶ 3 6 ] As set	forth	in the	relevant	statutory	provisions, 16 the Commission determined that the	 renewable	 energy	 generation	 goals	 to	 be considered include the	promotion	of adequate,	reliable , and	diverse	sources	of	electricity supply , and the reduction in	greenhouse	gas	emissions .		The	Commission	also concluded	that	the	Maine	Solar	Energy	Act,	35

- A	M.R.S.	§§ 3471

- 3474 (2018) , and	the	Maine Wind	Energy	Act,	35

- A	M.R.S.	§§	3401

- 3404 (2018) ,	bear	on	the consideration	of	renewable	energy generation goals	by	implementing	a	state policy	of	encouraging	appropriately

- sited	wind	and	solar	energy	development, and	therefore	must	be	considered	as	part of the analysis of	renewable	energy generation goals pursuant	to section 3132(6). [¶ 3 7 ] The	 Commission considered	 the	 goals of	 renewable	 energy generation as	part	of	its section 3132(6)	analysis .		In	doing	so,	the	Commission found that the	 NECEC project will	 result	 in	 incremental	 hydroelectric

NECEC project	as	proposed	with	 the	direct

- current	design	was	selected	as	 the	winning	bid	and	a separate	proposal	using	an alternating

- current design	was	not.		Additionally,	the	Commission	found that	 the	 NECEC	 project,	 as	 designed	 with direct	 current technology,	 would	 not	 hinder	 Maine’s renewable	energy goals	and	may	even	facilitate	renewable	energy	development.		These	findings are suppo rted	by	substantial	record	evidence.

16 See 35

- A	M.R.S.	§	3210(1) (2018); 38	M.R.S.	§	631(1) (2018).		The	Commission	explained	that Maine’s	renewable

- energy portfolio	standards are	governed	by 35

- A	M.R.S.	§	3210(1) , which	states : In	order	to	ensure	an	a dequate	and	reliable	supply	of	electricity	for	Maine	residents and	to	encourage	the	use	of	renewable,	efficient	and	indigenous	resources,	it	is	the policy	 of	 this	State	 to encourage	 the	 generation	 of	 electricity	 from	 renewable	 and efficient	 sources	 and	 to diversify	 electricity	 production	 on	which	 residents	 of	 this State	rely in	a	manner	consistent	with	this	section

.20 generation ; will reduce	greenhouse	gas	emissions in	the	region ; will	not	hinder Maine’s progress	 towards	 meeting	 its	 statutory	 renewable energy portfolio requirements	and	solar	and	wind	energy	goals ; may benefit	future	renewable energy	generation	projects	as	a	result	of	 the	upgrades	 that	 ISO N ew	England (ISO

- NE) 17 has	already	identified	as	 necessary	 to	 the	interconnection	 of	new renewable energy generation	 in	 western	 and	 northern	 Maine ; will	 have	 no impact on	any	proposed	renewable energy generation	projects	in	Maine that have a	 better	 interconnection	 queue	 position ; 18 and has the potential	 to facilitate	 renewable	generation	in	Maine by	providing for	additional	 transfer capacity	at	no	cost	to	future	generatio n	developers

. These	factual	findings	are supported	 by substantial evidence	in	 the	 record. See Friedman	 v. Pub.	Utils. Comm’n ,	2016	ME	19,	¶	10,	132	A.3d	183

. [¶ 3 8 ] Section 3132(6) requir es	 only	 that	 the	 Commission	 take	 into account	state	renewable energy	generation	goals

— it does	not	specify how the

17 ISO

- NE is the regional	transmission	organization a uthorized	by	the	Federal	Energy	Regulatory Commission	to operate	New	England’s	power	grid,	administer	New	England’s	wholesale

- electricity markets,	and	ensure that New	England’s	electricity	needs	are	met	through	power

- system	planning. See Our	Three	Critical	Roles ,	ISO	New	England, https://www.iso

- ne.com/about/w hat

- we - do/three

roles (last	visited	March	12,	2020).

18 “ The	 ISO	 New	 England	 Interconnection	 Queue	 lists	 the	 current	 status	 of	 requests	 for	 the interconnection	 of	 new	 or	 uprated	 (increased	 capacity)	 generating	 facilities	 in	 New	 England .” Interconnection	 Re quest	 Queue ,	 ISO	 New	 England , https://www.iso

- ne.com/system

- planning/ transmission

- planning/interconnection

- request
- queue/	 (last	 visited	 March	 12,	 2020). Queue position	“ determines	order	for	the	purposes	of	interconnection	study	and	cost	allocation .” Id

.21 Commission is	 to consider	 those	goals. Here,	 the	Commission	made	 specific factual	findings	and	considered	Maine’s	renewable	energy generation goals	in light	 of	 those	 findings	 as	 part	 of	 its	 overall	 public	 need	 analysis. The Commission’s	conclusions	regarding	the	NECEC project and	Maine’s	Renewable Energy	Goals	were	reasonable	and consistent	with	the	law

. See Pine	Tree	Tel.
& 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 exercise	of	discretion	and	is	supported	by	substantial	evidence	in	the	record.” ).
D. T he S tipulation [¶ 39 ] During	the	course	of	the	proceeding,	CMP	negotiated	a	stipulation with	 a	 number	 of	 the	 parties,	 pursuant	 to	 Chapter	 110,	 Section	 8(D)	 of	 the Commission’s	Rules.		The s tipulation	was	joined	by	CMP, the	Office	of	the	Public Advocate,	the	Industrial	Energy	Co nsumer	Group,	the	Governor’s	Energy	Office, the	Conservation	Law	Foundation ,	the	Acadia	Center,	the	Western	Mountains and	 Rivers	 Corporation,	 the	 City	 of	 Lewiston,	 the	 Maine State Chamber	 of Commerce,	 the	 International	 Brotherhood	 of	 Electrical	Workers Local	Union 104,	 and	 Friends	 of	 Maine	 Mountains .	 	 The thirty

- eight

- page s tipulation recommended	approvals	and	 findings	 regarding	issuance	 of	 the	CPCN,	CPCN conditions,	and	nontransmission	alternatives.		The	stipulating	parties	agreed22 that	 a	 public	 need	 exi sts	 for	 the	NECEC project and	 that	 construction	 of	 the
NECEC project is	in	the	public	interest. [¶ 4 0 ] T he	Commission’s	rules	set	forth	four	requirements	for	approval of	a	stipulation,	including	that	the	stipulating	parties	represent	a	“sufficiently broa d	spectrum	of	interests”	to	ensure that there	is	no	appearance	or	reality	of disenfranchisement.	 	 65

- 407	 C.M.R.	 ch.	 110,	 §	 8(D)(7). “Sufficiently	 broad spectrum	of	interests” is	not	defined	in	the	rules,	but	has	been	interpreted	by the	Commission	as	prohibiting	stipulations	where	the	signing	parties	represent only	 a	 narrow	 interest. 19 This	 interpretation	 is	 entitled	 to	 deference. See Enhanced Commc’ns ,	2017	ME	178,	¶	7,	169	A .3d	408. [¶ 4 1 ] We	are	unpersuaded	by	NextEra’s	assertion	 that	 the	 stipulating parties	did	not	represent	a	sufficiently	broad	spectrum	of	interests. 20 Here,	the

19 See Central	Maine	Power	Company	and	Public	Service	of	New	Hampshire, Request	for	Certificate of	 Public	 Convenience	 and	 Necessity	 for	 the	 Maine	 Power	 Reliability	 Program	 Consisting	 of	 the Construction	of	Approximately	350	Miles	of	345	kV	and	115	kV Transmission	Lines ,	No.	2008

- 255, Order	 Approving	 Stipulation	 at	 20	 ( Me.	 P.U.C. June	 10,	 2010)	 (“[T]he	 primary	 purpose	 of	 the Commission’s	 first	 stipulation	 approval	 criterion

.	 .	 . is	 to	 ensure	 that	 the	 Commission	 does	 not approve	stipulations	where	the	s igning	parties	represent	only	a	narrow	interest. ”) ; see	also Public Utilities	 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 , I nvestigation	Into	Regulatory	Alternatives	for	the	New	England	Telephone	and	Telegraph	Company d/b/a	NYNEX ,	No.	94

- 123,	Order	at	5	( Me.	P.U.C. March	17,	1998).

20 NextEra	 also	 argues	 the	 Commission	 erred	 by	 approving	 the s tipulation	 because	 certain provisio ns	 relate	 to	 obligations	 of	 entities	 outside	 of	 the	 Commission’s	jurisdiction. Because	 the Commission	 explicitly	 found	 that	 “even	 without	 the	 additional	 benefits	 provided	 by	 the	 CPCN Conditions	set	 forth	in	 [the]	Stipulation	 .	 .	 .	 the	NECEC	would	meet	the statutory	public	need	and23 Commission found	 that	 the	signatories	 “represent	a	comparably	diverse	and broad	spectrum	of	interests,”	including	the	interests	of	Maine	ratepayers,	large industrial	 customers, members of	 the	 environmental	 community,	 large	 and small	business es ,	electrical	workers,	an d	at	least	on e affec ted municipality.		The Commission	also	gave	significant	weight	to	the	Governor’s	participation in	the development	 of and	 support for the	 negotiated s tipulation

— finding that her support	 “enhance[d]	 the	 breadth	 of	 the	 spectrum	 of	 interest s . ”	 	 Given the breadth	and	diversity	of	the	interests	of	the	signatories	to	the	stipulation ,	the
Commission concluded that there	 was	 no	 appearance	 or	 reality	 of disenfranchisement.	 	 Th at	 conclusion is	 consistent	 with	 the	 Commission’s precedent s interpreting	 what	 constitutes	 a	 “sufficiently	 broad	 spectrum	 of interests.” The	Commission	did	not	abuse	its	discretion	when	it	concluded	that the s tipulation	satisfied	the	approval	criteria	contained	in	its	rules. See 65

- 407 C.M.R.	ch.	110,	§ 8(D). [¶ 4 2 ] Although	the Commission	concluded	that	the provisions	included in	 the s tipulation “ augment	 the	 benefits	 that	 will	 be	 realized	 by	 Maine ratepayers,	 communities	 and	 the	 environment	 by	 funding	 mechanisms	 and

public	interest	standards	of	Title	35

- A,	Section	3132	and,	thus,	would	be	granted	a	CPCN [ , ] ”	we	do not	address	this	argument.24 programs	 to	provide	rate	relief	 to	Maine	ratepayers,	benefits	 for	low

- income customers,	 and	 support	 for	 a	 variety	 of	 other	 programs	 intended	 to	 benefit Maine	communities	and	the	environment,”	the	Commission	did	not	rely	upon the s tipulation	in	arriving	at its	determination	of	public	need or its	decision	to grant	 the	 CPCN. 21 Thus,	 any	 issue	 regarding	 the	 validity	 of	 the	 stipulation becomes	 immaterial	 given	 that	 the	 Commission’s	 reasoning	 rested	 on independent	aspects	of	the	record.
III. CONCLUSION [¶ 4 3 ] T he	 Commission	 followed	 the	 proper	 procedure and	 t here	 is sufficient	evidence	in	the	record	to	support	the	findings	it	made. In	short,	t he
Commission reasonably	 interpreted	 and	 applied	 the	 relevant statutory mandates	 in	 arriving	 at	 its	 deci sion	 to	 grant CM P	 a certificate	 of	 public convenience	and	necessity for	the NECEC	P roject and in its	decision	to	approve the	 stipulation

. See 35

- A	 M.R.S.	 §	 3132. NextEra	 has	 not	 shown	 that	 the

21 In	addition	to	the	economic	benefits	provided	by	the	stipulation, see	supra note 9 ,	the	stipulatio n conditions	 granting	 the	 CPCN	 on	 a	 preference	 for	 Maine	 workers ; a	 commitment	 to	 long

- term planning	for	decarbonization	in	the	region;	mitigation	of	the	NECEC’s	impact	on	transmission	system and	existing	and	 future	energy	 resources	in	Maine ; the	securitiz ation	of	certain	 funds	established through	 the	 stipulation;	 and	 a	 support	 agreement	 for	 certain	 commitments	 made as	 part	 of	 the s tipulation .		Finally,	 the	stipulation	provides	 that	CMP	will	 transfer	and	convey	ownership	of	 the project	to NECEC	Transmission	LLC,	a	wholly	owned	subsidiary	within	the	Avangrid	Networks	family that is not a	subsidiary	of	CMP .		 In	order	 to	protect	ratepayers,	 the	 terms	of	 the p roject’s	transfer include arrangements that	will	effectively	separate CMP	from t he	ris ks	associated	with the remaining development	efforts and construction	of	the	Project.25 Commission ’ s	issuance	of	the	CPCN	or	approval	of	the	stipulation	w as arbitrary

or otherwise based	on	an	error	of	law. See Cent.	Maine	Power	Co. ,	2014	ME	56, ¶ 25 ,	90	A.3d	451

. The	entry	is: Order	 of	 the	 Public	 Utilities	 Commission affirmed

.

Jerrol	A.	Crouter,	Esq. (orally) ,	and	Amy	K.	Olfene,	Esq.,	Drummond Woodsum, Portland,	for	appellant	NextEra	Energy	Resources,	LLC Mitchell	M.	Tannenbaum,	Esq. (orally) ,	Jordan	D.	McColman,	Esq.,	and	Amy	B. Mills,	 Esq.,	 Maine	 Public	 Utilities	 Commission,	 Augusta,	 for	 appellee	 Maine Public	Utilities	Commission Anthony	W.	Buxton,	Esq.,	R.	Benjamin	Borowski,	Esq.,	and	Joseph	G.	Donahue, Esq.,	Preti	Flaherty	Beliveau	&	Pachios,	 LLP,	Portland,	 for	appellee	 Industrial Energy	Consumer	Group Catherine	R.	Connors,	Esq.,	Jared	S.	de	Rosiers,	Esq. (orally) ,	and	Sarah	B. Tracy, Esq.,	Pierce	Atwood	LLP,	Portland,	for	appellee	Central	Maine	Power	Company Barry	J.	Hobbins,	Esq.,	Office	of	the	Public	Advocate, Augusta, for	appellee	Office of	the	Public	Advocate

Public	Utilities	Commission case number	2017

- 00232 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY