Opinion ID: 2337474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: effect of service contracts

Text: All of the petitioners had executed written contracts with the Cooperative to purchase all their electric energy requirements from it for a period of one year (already elapsed) and thereafter until canceled by at least 30 days written notice given by either party to the other. There is no suggestion that these contracts had been terminated at the time of the Commission's decree. In this connection the decree stated: The question with regard to the relationship between the Cooperative and its customers, the Cooperative being an unregulated utility, were matters solely within the province of those two parties and if a Petitioner wished to seek regulated electric service and breach an existing contract with the Cooperative, we believed that was for the Petitioners' sole determination and not a matter for the Commission to pass upon; nor assuming that a contractual relation does exist, do we believe that such a relationship is a bar to this Commission's hearing and determining the present requests. We think the Commission fairly stated the appropriate limitations on its competence to decide contractual issues between petitioners and a non-regulated utility outside its control. Moreover, no breach of the contracts had occurred and none could properly be anticipated. There was nothing to prevent any or all of the petitioners from giving the 30 day notice of cancelation in such season that the contracts would be terminated before any service ordered by the Commission could be rendered by Maine Public to the petitioners. The cases relied upon by the appellant are readily distinguishable upon their facts. If the contracts are later breached before valid termination and are otherwise enforceable, the appellant may seek appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction. The Commission is not such a tribunal.