Opinion ID: 1972978
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Section 305 Complaint

Text: On a section 305 complaint, the Law Court's jurisdiction to review an order of the Commission is limited to cases in which the justness or reasonableness of a rate, toll or charge by a utility or the constitutionality of a commission ruling or order is in issue. [13] In the instant case, First Hartford has not alleged that the Commission's order of August 24, 1979, dismissing the section 291 complaint, was confiscatory or otherwise unconstitutional. With respect to the allegations in First Hartford's complaint that CMP's fuel charges were unjust and unreasonable, the authority of the Law Court under section 305 to review, modify, amend or annul a Commission order is confined to the extent of the unlawfulness of the order. We have found, on the section 303 appeal, that the Commission was correct in concluding that it could give the complainants no prospective relief and that it did not have authority to order refunds for amounts charged under CMP's former fuel adjustment clauses. Hence the Commission's order dismissing the section 291 complaint was not unlawful. Since the Commission's order was neither unconstitutional nor unlawful, First Hartford's complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim cognizable by the Law Court under section 305. The entry is: Section 303 appeal denied; Commission order of August 24, 1979, affirmed. Section 305 complaint dismissed. All concurring.