MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions

Decision: 2020 ME	34

Docket: PUC-19-182

Argued: December 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)	

project. The	NECEC	project	is	a	145.3-mile	transmission	line,	proposed	to	run	

from	 the	 Maine-Québec	 border	 in	 Beattie	 Township	 to	 Lewiston,	 that will

deliver	1,200	megawatts of	electricity	from	Québec	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	its	decision	to	

approve	the	 stipulation.		We	affirm	 the	 decision	 of	 the	Maine	Public	Utilities

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-Québec,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	 petition	 described the	 NECEC	

project	as	“a	high	voltage	direct	current	(HVDC)	transmission	solution	capable	

 1 Hydro-Québec subsequently	transferred	its	interest	in	the	project	to	H.Q.	Energy	Services	(U.S.)	

Inc.	 (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	Québec	to	the	New	England	

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	

electricity	customers.”		

[¶4]		Upon	receiving	the	petition,	the	Commission’s	hearing	examiners2

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	

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	 examiners	 are	 Commission	 staff	 assigned	 to	 oversee	 a	 case.	 	 Two	 examiners	were	

assigned	to	this	proceeding.

3		The	Conservation	Law	Foundation,	Dorothy	Kelly,	the	Maine	Renewable	Energy	Association,	the	

Natural	Resources	Council	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	bid

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	 in	

March 2018,	asserting 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	 examiners	 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,	 leading the	 examiners	 to	 schedule	 additional	

conferences	 and	 rebuttal	 phases to	 the	 proceeding.	 	 Technical	 conferences	

continued	 through the	summer	 of	2018 into	 the	fall.		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	Northeast,	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	

Workers	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		Public	witness	hearings	were held	in Farmington	and	the	Forks	Plantation	in September	2018.		

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	

January 2019,7 following	which	the	parties	briefed	specific	questions	posed	by	

the	examiners.		

[¶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	 stipulation	was	 joined	 by	 eleven	

parties,	 including	 CMP,	 the	Office	 of	 the	Public	 Advocate,	 and	 the	 Industrial	

Energy	 Consumer	 Group. See	 infra ¶	 39.	 	 The	 thirty-eight-page stipulation

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	examiners	granted	NextEra’s	motion	on	October 26,	thereby	

canceling	the	next	three	scheduled 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	 transmission	 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	interest.		A	hearing	on	the	stipulation	was	held	on	March	7,	2019.		

[¶9]		On	March	29,	2019,	the	hearing	examiners	issued	a 162-page	report	

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

augmented	 the	project’s	benefits and	likewise	recommended	approval	of	 the

stipulation.	 	 A	 number	 of	 parties,	 including	 NextEra,	 filed	 comments	 and	

exceptions	to	the	hearing	examiners’ report.		

[¶10]		In	the 100-page	order dated	May	3,	2019,	the	Commission	adopted	

the	 recommendations	 and	 findings	 of	 the	 examiners’	 report	 and	 concluded,	

inter	alia,	that	(1)	the	NECEC	project	meets	the statutory public	need	standard	

and	 is	 in	 the	 public	 interest;	 and	 (2)	 the	 stipulation	 satisfies	 the	 approval	

criteria	set	forth in	the	Commission’s rules. The	commissioners	unanimously	

voted	 to grant	 CMP	 a	 certificate	 of	 public	 convenience	 and	 necessity for	 the	
7

construction	and	operation—all	at	no	cost	to	Maine	electricity	customers—of	

the	New	England	Clean	Energy	Connect	Project.

10

[¶11]	 	NextEra timely	 appealed.	 See	 35-A	 M.R.S.	 §	 1320 (2018);	 M.R.	

App. P.	2B.	

II.		DISCUSSION

[¶12]		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	nontransmission	alternatives;	(2)	erred	in	its	construction	

and	application	of 35-A	M.R.S.	§ 3132(6) (2018);	and	(3)	abused	its	discretion	

in	approving the	stipulation. Before	we	address	these	arguments,	we	address	

the	 preliminary	 matter	 of	 whether	 NextEra	 has standing	 to	 appeal	 the	

Commission’s	order.

A. NextEra’s Standing to Appeal

[¶13]	 	 The	 Industrial Energy	 Consumer	 Group 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	outcome.		

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	omitted).		

[¶14]	 	 Section	 1320	 governs	this	Court’s	 review	 of	Commission	 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	 order	 granting	

CMP’s	petition	for	the	NECEC	project.		See	id.

[¶15]		NextEra	contends	that	the	order	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. Nontransmission Alternatives

[¶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	

investigations	that	was	in	effect	at	the	time	of	the	order,	instead	of	35-A	M.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	

investigation	is fatal	to	its	petition.

[¶17]		In	its	order,	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.	 Public Utilities Commission,	 682	 A.2d	

231,	234	(Me. 1996), concluded	that,	despite	the	plain	language of	the	statute	

requiring	 an	 NTA investigation,	 strictly	 adhering	 to	 the	 statute	 in	 this	 case	

would	lead	to	“absurd	results.”

[¶18]		The	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	(effective Nov.	1,	2017),	which	was	in	effect	at	the	time	CMP	filed	

its	petition.		We	agree	with	NextEra	that	§	3132(2-C)(C)	(2016) 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 the	 total	

projected	costs	of	the	alternatives.	 35-A	M.R.S.	§	3132(2-C)(C)	(2016),	repealed	

by	P.L.	 2017,	 ch.	 201,	 §	 3	 (effective Nov.	 1,	 2017). Additionally,	35-A	 M.R.S.

§ 3132(6) requires	 an analysis	 to	 explore	 less	 costly	 alternatives	 to	 the	

proposed	 transmission	line.	 Because	 this 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	illogical result.		

[¶19]		The	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

[¶20]	 	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 project.		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,	¶	19,	90	A.3d	

451	(quotation	marks omitted).	

[¶21]		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. Interpreting “Public	Need”

[¶22]	 	 We	 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	asserts	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).	

[¶23]		Section	3132	provides,	in	part,	that	“a	person	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	public	

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	convenience	and	necessity	for	the	transmission	line.”		(Emphasis	added.)	

Although	section	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	transmission	line	
13

to	 inhabited	 dwellings	 and	 alternatives	 to	 construction	 of	 the	

transmission	 line,	 including	 energy	 conservation,	 distributed	

generation	or	load	management.

[¶24]	 Furthermore,	 the	 Commission	 rules	 do define	 “public	 need.”

Chapter	330	of	those rules	establishes	filing	requirements	pursuant	to	section

3132,	and section	9(A)	of	Chapter	330 sets	forth	the	standards	for	granting	a	

CPCN, directing 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	 cost	 alternative	 because	

aesthetic,	environmental	or	other	factors	justify	a	reasonable	cost	

increase.

Id.	§	9(B)	(emphasis	added).		

[¶25]	 	 The	 Commission	 interpreted	 the	 public	 need	 standard	 as	

“essentially	 a	 general	 standard	 of	 meeting	 the	 public	 interest,”	 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	with	
14

section	 3132(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	reflected	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.

[¶26]		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

[¶27]	 	 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)

[¶28]		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	

into	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]		In	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

[¶30]		In	its	comprehensive	order, the	Commission	discussed	the	factors	

set	out	in	section	3132(6),	including	the	issues	raised	by	NextEra	concerning	

scenic	and	recreational	values	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	to $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	order	includes	a	chart	containing	a	summary	of	the	benefits	to	Maine	of	the	

NECEC	and	the	stipulation	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	 Québec-Maine	 Border	 to	 Lewiston	 (NECEC)	 and	 Related	 Network	

Upgrades, No.	 2017-232,	 Order	 Granting	 Certificate	 of	 Public	 Convenience	 and	 Necessity	 and	

Approving	Stipulation	at	7 (Me.	P.U.C.	May	3,	2019).		The	 value	to	Maine	of	the	wholesale	market	

effects	is	estimated	at	between	$200	million	and	$500	million,	the	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

[¶31]	 	 There	 is	 no	 dispute	 that	 the Commission	 found that	 the	

transmission	 line	 would	 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) 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	 consider	 mitigation.	 This	

argument	is	unpersuasive.

[¶32]		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	 measures	 to	

another	 state	 agency.”	 	 While the Commission recognized that	 it maintains	

coextensive	jurisdiction	with	the	DEP	and	the	LUPC	with	regard	to	any	impact	
18

on	 scenic and	 recreational	 values,	it	 did	 not	 defer	 to	 those	 agencies	 its	 own	

consideration	pursuant	to	section 3132(6).		

[¶33]	 	 Following	 the	 mandates	 of	 section	 3132(6),	 the	 Commission	

properly	 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

[¶34]		Section	3132(6) also requires the	Commission	to consider	Maine’s	

renewable energy	 generation	 goals.	 The	 Commission	 found	 that	 the	NECEC	

project	would	not	adversely	impact	those goals.		

[¶35]		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	 NECEC	 design	 that	 would	 use	

alternating current technology.	 	 This	 argument	 fails	 for	myriad	 reasons,	 one	 of	which	is	 that	 the	
19

[¶36]		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).		

[¶37]	 	 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

supported	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	adequate	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 New	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	generation	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.

[¶38]	 	 Section 3132(6)	 requires	 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 authorized	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/what-we-do/threeroles (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	 Request	 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. The Stipulation

[¶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	stipulation	was	joined	by	CMP,	the	Office	of	the	Public	

Advocate,	the	Industrial	Energy	Consumer	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	 stipulation	

recommended	approvals	and	 findings	 regarding	issuance	 of	 the	CPCN,	CPCN	

conditions,	and	nontransmission	alternatives.		The	stipulating	parties	agreed	
22

that	 a	 public	 need	 exists	 for	 the	NECEC project and	 that	 construction	 of	 the	

NECEC	project	is	in	the	public	interest.		

[¶40]		The	Commission’s	rules	set	forth	four	requirements	for	approval	

of	a	stipulation,	including	that	the	stipulating	parties	represent	a	“sufficiently	

broad	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.		

[¶41]		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	signing	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,	

Investigation	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	 stipulation	 because	 certain	

provisions	 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	and	
23

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	businesses,	electrical	workers,	and	at	least	one affected	municipality.		The	

Commission	also	gave	significant	weight	to	the	Governor’s	participation	in	the	

development	 of	 and	 support	for	the	 negotiated	 stipulation—finding that her	

support	 “enhance[d]	 the	 breadth	 of	 the	 spectrum	 of	 interests.”	 	 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.	 	 That	 conclusion is	 consistent	 with	 the	 Commission’s	

precedents interpreting	 what	 constitutes	 a	 “sufficiently	 broad	 spectrum	 of	

interests.”	 The	Commission	did	not	abuse	its	discretion	when	it	concluded	that	

the	stipulation	satisfied	the	approval	criteria	contained	in	its	rules. See	65-407	

C.M.R.	ch.	110,	§ 8(D).

[¶42]		Although	the	Commission	concluded	that	the	provisions	included	

in	 the	 stipulation “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	stipulation	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

[¶43]	 The	 Commission	 followed	 the	 proper	 procedure and	 there	 is	

sufficient	evidence	in	the	record	to	support	the	findings	it	made. In	short,	the	

Commission	 reasonably	 interpreted	 and	 applied	 the	 relevant statutory	

mandates	 in	 arriving	 at	 its	 decision	 to	 grant	 CMP	 a	 certificate	 of	 public	

convenience	and	necessity for	the NECEC	Project 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	stipulation	

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	securitization	of	certain	 funds	established	

through	 the	 stipulation;	 and	 a	 support	 agreement	 for	 certain	 commitments	 made	 as	 part	 of	 the	

stipulation.		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	project’s	transfer	

include	arrangements that	will	effectively	separate	CMP	from	the	risks	associated	with the remaining	

development	efforts	and construction	of	the	Project.		
25

Commission’s	issuance	of	the	CPCN	or	approval	of	the	stipulation	was 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

FOR	CLERK	REFERENCE	ONLY