Opinion ID: 1526377
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Rate Case Intervention

Text: On February 17, 1978, MODA, on behalf of itself and as representative of its individual ratepayer members, filed with the Commission its petition to intervene in F.C. # 2332, the CMP rate case. The petition was granted by a majority of the Commission in its order of March 17, 1978. The Commission urges that we not reach the merits of this issue, contending that because MODA has not appealed, no live controversy exists for our adjudication. While we agree that Central Maine has failed to show prejudice resulting from MODA's intervention below, and that we can offer no present remedy should we find error, we nevertheless find the issue justiciable. We consider a claim of an improper grant of intervenor status by the Commission to be a claim of right buttressed by a sufficiently substantial interest to warrant judicial protection . . . assert [ed] .. . against a defendant having an adverse interest in contesting it . . . . Jones v. Maine State Highway Commission, Me., 238 A.2d 226, 228-29 (1968). The increase in costs and time which may be prompted by widespread intervention require that the propriety of such grants be reviewable regardless of the presence of the intervenor as a party on appeal. At such stage it is the Commission, not the intervenor, who occupies the status of a defendant possessing an adverse interest, i. e., the protection of its powers to grant intervention on the grounds relied upon and there contested. To deny a right to challenge such decisions would present serious due process questions; we hold such a controversy to be justiciable even absent the party whose intervention is complained of. Commission Rule 16.1 restricts intervenor status to those  directly and substantially affected by the proceeding.  In Central Maine Power Co. v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, Me., 382 A.2d 302, 312 (1978) we observed that the Rule constitutes a  reasonable and in fact a necessary requirement if the Commission is to hear and determine the cases before it promptly and effectively.  We held in that case, decided only weeks before the Commission's action complained of here, that MODA had erroneously been granted intervenor status in that rate proceeding. There, however, MODA  sought intervenor status on the basis, fundamentally, that the rates charged by Central Maine in connection with electric space heating represented unfair competition.  Id., 382 A.2d at 311. Finding the Commission's basic concern in a rate investigation to be  the relationship of ratepayer to public utility (and ratepayer to ratepayer where discriminatory tariffs are at issue ), Id. at 312, we concluded: We discern in the rate regulation scheme no legislative intent that the Commission take into account the interests of unregulated third parties who chance to be somewhat in competition with a regulated utility. Id. We further observed that MODA made no claim that the interests of ratepayers were insufficiently represented in the proceeding, and concluded that, in reality,  intervenor status was sought here to guarantee a right of judicial review rather than to make possible the presentation of testimony.  Id. at 314. MODA's participation in these proceedings before the Commission transpired under far different circumstances. No claim of unfair competition was raised; indeed, the petition [10] to intervene gives no hint of competitive motives whatsoever. [11] More importantly, the Commission itself preempted any surreptitious attempt to evade our holding in the prior Central Maine case by granting intervenor status with the qualification that  the intervention must be limited to participation as ratepayers, and any attempt to introduce evidence which relates solely to the competitive position of the oil dealers will be excluded.  Finally, MODA's bona fides is demonstrated by its averment in its petition that no expert witness would testify as to rate structure, but that MODA wished to offer such evidence and to cross-examine witnesses on the issue. While that prediction held true only with respect to the Commission, it was reasonable for the Commission to consider it appropriate, in light of other intervenors presenting expert witnesses primarily representing the interests of other customer classes, [12] to insure a voice for the small general service customers. While a grant of intervenor status was not necessary to allow either testimony or cross-examination, it served to settle the issue early in the proceedings, and perhaps avoid later challenges to MODA's right to cross-examine. [13] While CMP contends in conclusory terms that MODA paid only lip service to its own general service rate, and focused its case upon residential rates (as to which it is competitor), our inspection of the record does not support an allegation of competitive advocacy. Rather, MODA's concern with residential rates dove-tails precisely with its stated rationale for intervention: to demonstrate cost and return inequities between its own small general service rate and residential rates. Indeed, its interest and position is comparable to that of intervenor St. Regis Paper Company, which sought realignment of customer classes on behalf of the large general service transmission (GST) ratepayers. Like St. Regis, MODA's interest was that of one allegedly prejudiced by a discrimination in favor of residential customers which Central Maine itself recognized and challenged. Presentation of that case necessarily entailed reference to residential rates. We are not prepared to deny the Commission the opportunity to hear a legitimate representative of any customer class merely because the representative may, in some tangential way not presented during the proceeding, be in competition with the utility. Compare, Cole v. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 79 Wash.2d 302, 485 P.2d 71, 90 P.U.R.3d 62 (1971). Our holding in the 1978 Central Maine Power v. Public Utilities Commission case is not inconsistent; [14] our earlier decision in Gifford v. Central Maine Power Company, Me., 217 A.2d 200 (1966) controls. In Gifford we recognized the right of an oil dealers group to appeal from a Commission decision, where they had established their status as ratepayers, and claimed aggrievement as such. [15] To deny MODA members the right to intervene on the ground that they are competitors would be to deprive them of a right they enjoy by virtue of their status as ratepayers solely because of a secondary status they possess in an area wholly outside the concern of the Commission. In its decisions with respect to procedural matters, the Commission assumes a status comparable to a court, bound by both its own rules promulgated pursuant to 35 M.R. S.A. § 3 and by the rules of procedure and evidence applicable to civil actions in the Superior Court, 35 M.R.S.A. § 308; see also 35 M.R.S.A. § 299; Central Maine Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, supra, 382 A.2d at 313. Accordingly, our review of the Commission's grant of intervention is limited to scrutinizing that action for evidence of an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, the burden of proving which rests with CMP. In Re O'Donnell's Express, Me., 260 A.2d 539 (1970); W. H. Glover Co. v. Smith, 126 Me. 397, 400, 138 A. 770, 772 (1927). We are satisfied that the Commission properly allowed MODA to intervene as representative of ratepayers  directly and substantially affected by the proceeding,  and properly and effectively limited their participation to issues as to which they possessed a legitimate interest. We deny Central Maine's appeal as to this issue.