Opinion ID: 2301453
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Tangible Benefits

Text: [¶ 15] FBM argues that LURC erred in interpreting the term tangible benefits to include TransCanada's grants to DOL and HPA, as well as the payments proposed in the community benefits package. [W]e directly review an agency's decision for an abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings not supported by the evidence. York Ins. of Me., Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins., 2004 ME 45, ¶ 13, 845 A.2d 1155. [¶ 16] As a general principle of statutory construction, enactments made by a subsequent Legislature may be examined to illuminate the meaning of prior legislative terminology that is ambiguous. Lee v. Massie, 447 A.2d 65, 69 (Me.1982). At issue is the definition of tangible benefits. Pursuant to 12 M.R.S. § 685-B(4-B)(D), the developer of a wind energy development-here, TransCanadamust demonstrate that the proposed generating facility [w]ill provide significant tangible benefits. In turn, 35-A M.R.S. § 3451(10) defines tangible benefits. Effective July 12, 2010, section 3451(10) was amended in the following way: Tangible benefits means environmental or economic improvements or benefits to residents of this State attributable to the construction, operation and maintenance of an expedited wind energy development, including but not limited to: property tax payments resulting from the development; other payments to a host community, including, but not limited to, payments under a community benefit agreement; construction-related employment; local purchase of materials; employment in operations and maintenance; reduced property taxes; reduced electrical rates; land or natural resource conservation; performance of construction, operations and maintenance activities by trained, qualified and licensed workers in accordance with Title 32, chapter 17 and other applicable laws; or other comparable benefits, with particular attention to assurance of such benefits to the host community or communities to the extent practicable and affected neighboring communities. P.L.2009, ch. 642, § A-6 (effective July 12, 2010) (codified at 35-A M.R.S. § 3451(10) (2011)). The parties and LURC agree that the pre-amendment version of this definition applies to the project. See P.L. 2009, ch. 642, § A-10. Thus, factors such as property tax payments resulting from the development and other payments to a host community were not explicitly included in the applicable version of section 3451(10), and TransCanada was not required to make payments under a community benefit agreement to satisfy the definition of tangible benefits. See P.L. 2009, ch. 642, §§ A-2 to A-7. [5] [¶ 17] LURC properly considered TransCanada's proposed grants and payments. Under the amendments effective on July 12, 2010, TransCanada's proposed payments are properly considered tangible benefits. Pursuant to P.L.2009, ch. 642, § A-6, other payments to a host community and payments under a community benefit agreement are now specifically included in the definition of tangible benefits. See also P.L.2009, ch. 642, §§ A-2, A-3 (defining community benefits package and community benefit agreement). Although the 2010 amendments do not apply to TransCanada's project, FBM itself asserts that the 2010 amendments clarify existing law. Thus, pursuant to FBM's own analysis, the pre-amendment definition of tangible benefits would include other payments to a host community and payments under a community benefit agreement. [¶ 18] Furthermore, LURC properly interpreted the pre-amendment definition of tangible benefits to include TransCanada's proposed community benefits package and the grants to DOL and HPA. [6] The pre-amendment version of 35-A M.R.S. § 3451(10) defines tangible benefits as environmental or economic improvements attributable to the construction, operation and maintenance of an expedited wind energy development. The pre-amendment definition further provides a non-exhaustive list of examples. [¶ 19] FBM disputes whether TransCanada's payments are  attributable to the construction, operation and maintenance of the project. 35-A M.R.S. § 3451(10) (emphasis added). The plain meaning of attribute is [t]o assign to a cause or source. Webster's New College Dictionary 75 (3d ed. 2008). TransCanada and LURC argue that the proposed community benefits package and the grants to DOL and HPA constitute tangible benefits because they would not occur but for the construction, operation and maintenance of the project. Conversely, FBM asserts that these payments come from TransCanada's general wealth and do not result from the the construction, operation and maintenance of the project. 35-A M.R.S. § 3451(10). [¶ 20] To the extent that the term attributable in 35-A M.R.S. § 3451(10) is ambiguous, LURC's interpretation is reasonable and should be accorded deference. See Dep't of Corr. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2009 ME 40, ¶ 8, 968 A.2d 1047. To determine the reasonableness of an agency's interpretation, [this Court] examine[s] the legislative history as well as the context of the whole statutory scheme of which the section at issue forms a part, so that a harmonious result, presumably the intent of the Legislature, may be achieved. Allied Res., Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2010 ME 64, ¶ 21, 999 A.2d 940 (quotation marks omitted). The Wind Energy Act codified the Legislature's determination that it is in the public interest to explore opportunities for and encourage the development, where appropriate, of wind energy production in the State, and that development of the State's wind energy resources should be undertaken in a manner that ensures significant tangible benefits to the people of the State. 35-A M.R.S. § 3402. Given these goals, LURC's broad interpretation of the term attributable furthers the purpose of the statute as a whole. Payments to host communities, such as those at issue here, benefit those communities and the State regardless of whether they flow directly and organically from the project itself or from the applicant's own wealth. In either case, such payments would not occur or benefit the State but for the approval and resultant construction, operation and maintenance of the project. 35-A M.R.S. § 3451(10). [¶ 21] Notwithstanding LURC's conclusion that the community benefits package and the payments to DOL and HPA fell within the definition of the tangible benefits that are attributable to the construction, operation and maintenance found in the pre-amendment version of 35-A M.R.S. § 3451(10), LURC made findings that would independently support its decision to approve TransCanada's amended application. Specifically, LURC found that the project, as proposed, would result in the employment of several hundred workers during construction, with a large majority being from Maine, provide indirect benefits to local businesses during the construction period, and create 1 additional permanent job in operations and maintenance. See 35-A M.R.S. § 3451(10) (including, among the non-exhaustive list of tangible benefits to be considered during the expedited permitting process, construction-related employment[,] local purchase of materials[,] [and] employment in operations and maintenance) (enacted by P.L.2007, ch. 661, § A-7 (effective April 18, 2008)). In addition, LURC concluded that the project would generate an estimated $13 million in State income taxes over a 25-year period. [¶ 22] LURC's additional findings comport with the type of tangible, economic benefits that are expressly stated in the pre-amendment version of 35-A M.R.S. § 3451(10). FBM does not, and cannot, make the argument that these tangible benefits fall outside the scope of the pre-amendment definition of the term in 35-A M.R.S. § 3451(10). The creation of jobs, the indirect benefits to local businesses during the construction period, and the generation of 13 million dollars in State income taxes over a 25-year period are all directly attributable to the construction, operation and maintenance of the project. That LURC reasonably construed 35-A M.R.S. § 3451(10) to include the community benefits package and the payments to DOL and HPA in its tangible benefits analysis-beyond what the express language of the pre-amendment definition required at the time-proves to be of little consequence to the disposition of this appeal. See Rangeley Crossroads Coal. v. Land Use Regulation Comm'n, 2008 ME 115, ¶ 10, 955 A.2d 223 (We . . . do not substitute our own judgment for that of the agency and must affirm findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record.). [¶ 23] For these reasons, LURC's interpretation of tangible benefits was reasonable, and LURC committed no error in considering TransCanada's community benefits package and the grants to DOL and HPA. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.