Opinion ID: 1495221
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Scope of the Authority

Text: The evidence addressing the issue of public convenience and necessity related almost exclusively to the applicant's pick-up and delivery schedule. The Commission's decree ordered: That Maine Intrastate Common Carrier Certificate No. 40 issued . . . to Franklin W. Powell . . . be and the same hereby is amended by adding authority to transport general freight and merchandise as follows: Between Portland, South Portland, and Fryeburg, Maine, serving Portland, South Portland, Westbrook, Sebago, Windham, Raymond, Casco, Naples, Harrison, Bridgton, and Fryeburg both inclusive and with intermediate pick up and delivery service in both directions and at all points. The intervenors argue that the scope of this authority is greater than that justified by the evidence and permits the applicant to operate on a schedule identical to Sanborn's. The intervenors are apparently asking this Court to invalidate the Commission's decree for its failure to conform to the proof. Any detailed consideration of this issue is foreclosed by our opinion on the same matter in In re Lefebvre, supra , in which Sanborn also appeared as intervenor. We noted above that the Commission here found that Sanborn's service was inadequate in regard to its provision for same-day service. We said in Lefebvre: Once inadequacy of existing service is determined the Commission may, in its discretion, authorize competition and need not limit the new carrier to providing service restricted to areas of specific demonstrated inadequacy. . . . The Commission has broad discretion in deciding to what extent competition would serve the public interest. . . . (Citations omitted.) 343 A.2d at 210. The determination of the public needs in the field of regulated utilities is within the expertise and experience of the Commission. In the absence of any abuse of that informed discretion, this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission. Biddeford & Saco Gas Co. v. Portland Gas Light Co., 233 A.2d 730 (Me.1967); Petition of O'Donnell, 147 Me. 259, 86 A.2d 389 (1952).