Opinion ID: 2322750
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: II-B The Motion for Additional Evidence in the Section 305 Complaint Proceeding

Text: We now consider the motion of New England, filed in the Section 305 proceeding, requesting the Law Court to order additional evidence asserted to be critical to the decision of the constitutional issues raised. Our examination of the record made before the Commission confirms the contention of New England that additional evidence bearing upon the constitutionality of the substance, and the practical effects, of the plan promulgated by the Commission is necessary to allow this Court adequately to fulfill its responsibility to decide the constitutional issues by an exercise of independent judicial judgment on the facts as well as the law. The record corroborates the assertions of New England that the Commission plan (1) is not a compromise between the Originating Responsibility Plan and the Independents' plan on which the Record focused but is, relative to each of those plans, essentially new and unique in its philosophy and its principles; and (2) was promulgated by the Commission without prior indication sufficient to enable the parties reasonable time to anticipate that it would be forthcoming  with the result that the record, as it presently exists, is barren of any evidence either in support of or against the Commission's Plan which can be scrutinized by the Law Court to allow it to exercise independent judgment as to the facts critical for the evaluation and decision of the constitutionality of the Commission's plan in its controlling principles and applications. Moreover, there was a substantial gap in time (more than one year) from the date of the close of the evidence before the Commission (May 4, 1971) to the date of the Commission's Order of May 24, 1972, as well as a further gap of an additional four months to the time (October 1972) when the Law Court heard oral argument on the motion for the taking of additional evidence. The Law Court is thus entirely uninformed as to the potential materiality of changes or developments which, according to New England, occurred during the prolonged periods from May 4, 1971 to May 4, and October, 1972. This creates the clear need for an updating of the evidence to permit the Law Court to be informed, and evaluate the constitutional significance, of any factual changes or developments. We conclude, therefore, that New England's motion for additional evidence should be granted to allow the taking of further evidence in kind and scope as follows: (1) evidence bearing upon whether the Commission's Interim Maine Plan in practical operation would require New England, its stockholders and its rate payers to subsidize EAS/ELS service to Independent Telephone Company exchanges; (2) evidence of the costs which would result to New England and its stockholders and rate payers were the Commission's plan to be effectuated; (3) evidence relevant to an adequate understanding of whether the Commission's plan in its philosophy, principles and practical effect might be considered to go beyond the legitimate bounds of constitutional governmental regulation of a privately owned utility business; [18] and (4) evidence of any facts, changes or developments occurring subsequent to the close of the evidence before the Commission (May 4, 1971) and which may be considered relevant to the constitutional issues raised concerning the Commission's plan. Accordingly, the Public Utilities Commission is herewith directed promptly to take out evidence, in accordance with the foregoing delineations, from New England and any other of the parties who might wish to present evidence. After it has heard and taken such additional evidence the Commission, as it deems appropriate by reason thereof, is authorized, in accordance with Section 305, to modify its original findings, conclusions and Order, or to make new findings and conclusions and a new Order. The Commission shall report all the additional evidence which it has taken to the Law Court promptly and in manner such that, as required by Section 305, . . . the proof may be brought as nearly as possible down to the date of its report thereof to the court. If the Commission has modified its original findings of fact or made new findings of fact, or modified its original Order, or made a new Order, it shall file with the Law Court such modified findings of fact or Order or such new findings of fact or Order, if any. Reserved to all parties are the rights provided under Section 305 in relation to such changed, or new, findings of facts or orders, including the right to file specification of errors as additional matter to be considered by the Law Court during the further course of the Section 305 complaint proceeding.