MAINESUPREMEJUDICIALCOURT ReporterofDecisionsDecision: 2020ME34Docket: PUC-19-182Argued: December6,2019Decided: March17,2020Panel: SAUFLEY,C.J.,andGORMAN,JABAR,HUMPHREY,andHJELM,JJ.*

NEXTERAENERGYRESOURCES,LLCv.

MAINEPUBLICUTILITIESCOMMISSIONetal.JABAR,J.

[¶1]NextEraEnergyResources,LLC,appealsfromanorderoftheMaine

PublicUtilitiesCommissiongrantingCentralMainePowerCompany’s (CMP)

petition for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) for the

constructionandoperationoftheNewEnglandCleanEnergyConnect(NECEC)

project.TheNECECprojectisa145.3-miletransmissionline,proposedtorun

from the Maine-Quebec border in Beattie Township to Lewiston, that will

deliver1,200megawattsofelectricityfromQuebectotheNewEnglandControl

* JusticeHjelmsatatoralargumentandparticipated in the initialconferencewhilehewasa

Justice,and,onorderoftheChiefJustice,wasauthorizedtocontinuehisparticipationinhiscapacityasanActiveRetiredJustice.

JusticeMeadsatatoralargumentandparticipatedintheCourt’sinitialconferenceregardingthisopinionimmediatelyfollowingtheoralargumentbutdidnotparticipatefurtherinthedevelopmentoftheopinion.

2

Area.WediscernnoerrorintheCommission’sdeterminationthattheNECEC

projectmeetstheapplicablestatutorystandardsforaCPCNorinitsdecisionto

approve thestipulation. Weaffirmthedecisionof theMainePublicUtilities

Commission.

I.BACKGROUND

[¶2]PursuanttoanenactmentoftheMassachusettsLegislaturein2008,

everydistributioncompanywithinMassachusettswasrequiredtosolicitand

enter into cost-effective long-termcontracts for clean-energygeneration. In

response to the Massachusetts electric distribution companies’ and

MassachusettsDepartmentofEnergyResources’requestforproposalsseeking

bidsforcleanenergy,CMPandHydroRenewableEnergyInc.,aU.S.affiliateof

Hydro-Quebec,1submittedajointbidfortheNECECproject.

[¶3] On September 27, 2017, in anticipation of Massachusetts’s

January25,2018,deadlinetoselectthewinningbid,CMPfiledapetitionwith

the Commission for a CPCN for the NECEC project. See 35-AM.R.S. §3132

(2018); 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 330 (2012). The petition described the NECEC

projectas“ahighvoltagedirectcurrent(HVDC)transmissionsolutioncapable

1Hydro-QuebecsubsequentlytransferreditsinterestintheprojecttoH.Q.EnergyServices(U.S.)

Inc. (HQUS),oneofitsexistingU.S.affiliates. AsHydroRenewableEnergy Inc.’ssuccessor,HQUSservesasthecounterpartyforcontractualarrangementsunderlyingtheNECECproject.

3

ofdelivering1,200[megawatts]ofelectricityfromQuebectotheNewEngland

Control Area.” CMP asserted in its petition that the NECEC would “be

developed, constructed and operated by CMP in Maine at no cost to Maine

electricitycustomers.”

[¶4]Uponreceivingthepetition,theCommission’shearingexaminers2

issued a “Notice of Proceeding” to provide all interested persons with the

opportunity to file petitions for intervention by October 13, 2017. The

examiners granted seven timely-filed petitions to intervene, including those

filedbytheappelleesinthismatter,theOfficeofthePublicAdvocateandthe

IndustrialEnergyConsumerGroup.3

[¶5] In February 2018, after the Commission proceeding was a few

monthsunderway,CMPwasnotifiedthattheNECECprojecthadbeenselected

as the winning bid.4 Shortly thereafter, the Commission received many

2 Hearing examiners are Commission staff assigned to oversee a case. Two examinerswere

assignedtothisproceeding.

3TheConservationLawFoundation,DorothyKelly,theMaineRenewableEnergyAssociation,theNaturalResourcesCouncilofMaine,andWesternMountainsandRiversCorporationalsotimelyfiledpetitionstointervene.

4 TheNECECwasoriginallyselectedasthealternatewinningbid,butbecamethewinningbidafteranecessarysitingpermitfortheoriginalwinningbid,anall-hydroelectricbid,wasdeniedinNewHampshire.

4

late-filed petitions to intervene.5 NextEra filed its petition to intervene in

March2018,assertingthatitmaybesubstantiallyanddirectlyaffectedbythe

proceedingbecauseitindirectlyownsthreeexistingenergystationsinMaine,

aswellasanumberofwind,solar,andstorageprojectsunderdevelopmentin

the state. Notwithstanding NextEra’s late filing, the examiners agreed that

NextErawould be substantially and directly affected by the outcome of the

proceedingandthereforegrantedNextEradiscretionaryintervenorstatus.

[¶6] Thevolumeofdata requests and testimony filedbyover twenty

intervenors was substantial, leading the examiners to schedule additional

conferences and rebuttal phases to the proceeding. Technical conferences

continued through thesummerof2018 into the fall. CMPandNextEraboth

presented expert testimony. Throughout the course of the proceeding, the

Commissionheldthreepublicwitnesshearingsandreceivedover1,350public

comments.6

5 In addition toNextEra, the followingparties submitted late-filedpetitions to intervene: the

Governor’sEnergyOffice;RENEWNortheast,Inc.;CalpineCorporation,VistraEnergyCorporation,andBucksportGeneration,LLC(collectively,thegeneratorintervenors);theAcadiaCenter;Friendsof MaineMountains; ReEnergy Biomass Operations LLC; International Brotherhood of ElectricalWorkersLocalUnion104;CityofLewiston;TownofCaratunk;MaineChamberofCommerce;Townof Farmington;GreaterFranklinDevelopmentCouncil; TroutUnlimited; Former SenatorThomasSaviello; Darryl Wood; Town of Alna; Town of Wilton; Town of New Sharon; Old Canada RoadNationalScenicByway,Inc.;TownofJackman;andTerryBrann.Allpetitionsweregrantedoneitheramandatoryordiscretionarybasis.

6PublicwitnesshearingswereheldinFarmingtonandtheForksPlantationinSeptember2018.An additional public witness hearing was held in the Commission’s Hallowell hearing room in

5

[¶7] Six evidentiary hearings were held in October 2018 and

January2019,7followingwhichthepartiesbriefedspecificquestionsposedby

theexaminers.

[¶8]Astheproceedingprogressed,anumberoftheparties—including

CMP—engaged in negotiations and ultimately reached a stipulation.8 See

65-407C.M.R. ch. 110, §8(D) (2012). The stipulationwas joinedby eleven

parties, including CMP, theOffice of the Public Advocate, and the Industrial

Energy Consumer Group. See infra ¶ 39. The thirty-eight-page stipulation

requiredtheprojecttoprovidemyriadbenefitstoratepayersandtheStateas

conditions to the recommended Commission approval of the stipulated

findingsandissuanceoftheCPCN.9Thestipulatingpartiesagreedthata“public

October2018.ThemajorityofthepubliccommentstheCommissionreceivedwereinoppositiontotheNECECproject—largelyraisingenvironmental,scenic,andtourism-relatedconcerns.

7 OnOctober21,2018,NextErafiledamotiontosuspendthehearingsduetoCMP’sfailuretoproducedocumentsasordered. TheexaminersgrantedNextEra’smotiononOctober26,therebycancelingthenextthreescheduledhearings.

8InaccordancewiththeCommission’srules,“[t]heCommissionmaydisposeofallorpartofanyadjudicatoryproceedingbyapprovingastipulationofoneormoreissuesenteredintobetweentwoormoreparties.”65-407C.M.R.ch.110,§8(D)(2012).Astipulationisanagreementreachedbyparties through settlement negotiations in the course of commission proceedings. See generally65-407C.M.R.ch.110,§8(2012).

9Intermsofeconomicbenefits,thestipulationprovidesformorethan$140millioninratepayerbenefits,$50millioninbenefitsforlowincomecustomers,andover$57millionincommunityandstate-widebenefits—totalingalmost$250millionofadditionalfinancialbenefitsforMaine.Withtheexception of certain transmission rate credits, education grant funding, and funding for electricvehiclerebates, these fundingcommitmentsareconditionedontheNECECachievingcommercialoperation.

6

need”existsfortheNECECprojectandthatconstructionoftheNECECproject

isinthepublicinterest.AhearingonthestipulationwasheldonMarch7,2019.

[¶9]OnMarch29,2019,thehearingexaminersissueda162-pagereport

containing their recommendations. The examiners concluded that,

independent of the stipulation, the NECEC meets the applicable statutory

standards for a CPCN, and they recommended approval of CMP’s Petition.

Although not necessary to their finding of public need, the examiners

determined that the beneficial provisions described in the stipulation

augmentedtheproject’sbenefitsandlikewiserecommendedapprovalofthe

stipulation. A number of parties, including NextEra, filed comments and

exceptionstothehearingexaminers’report.

[¶10]Inthe100-pageorderdatedMay3,2019,theCommissionadopted

the recommendations and findings of the examiners’ report and concluded,

interalia,that(1)theNECECprojectmeetsthestatutorypublicneedstandard

and is in the public interest; and (2) the stipulation satisfies the approval

criteriasetforthintheCommission’srules.Thecommissionersunanimously

voted to grantCMP a certificateofpublic convenience andnecessity for the

7

constructionandoperation—allatnocosttoMaineelectricitycustomers—of

theNewEnglandCleanEnergyConnectProject.10

[¶11] NextEra timely appealed. See35-AM.R.S. § 1320 (2018);M.R.

App.P.2B.

II.DISCUSSION

[¶12] Inthisappeal,NextEraclaimsthattheCommission(1)erredby

failing to require CMP to file the results of an independent investigation

regardingtheuseofnontransmissionalternatives;(2)erredinitsconstruction

andapplicationof35-AM.R.S.§3132(6)(2018);and(3)abuseditsdiscretion

inapprovingthestipulation.Beforeweaddressthesearguments,weaddress

the preliminary matter of whether NextEra has standing to appeal the

Commission’sorder.

A. NextEra’sStandingtoAppeal

[¶13] The Industrial Energy Consumer Group contends that NextEra

lacks standing to bring this appeal.11 “The right to appeal from an

administrativedecisionisgovernedbystatute.Whetherapartyhasstanding

10Oneofthecommissionersfiledaseparateopinionbutjoinedintheoutcome.

11 NextEra contends that this argument was not preserved. However, standing is “an issuecognizableatanystageofalegalproceeding,”includingonappeal.BankofAmerica,N.A.v.Greenleaf,2015ME127,¶8,124A.3d1122.

8

dependsonthewordingofthespecificstatuteinvolved.”Nelsonv.Bayroot,LLC,

2008ME91,¶9,953A.2d378(citationomitted).

[¶14] Section1320governs thisCourt’s reviewofCommission action

andgrantsstatutorystandingtoappealto“[a]nypersonwhohasparticipated

incommissionproceedings,andwhoisadverselyaffectedbythefinaldecision

ofthecommission.”35-AM.R.S.§1320(2)(2018).Thereisnoquestionthat

NextEraparticipatedinthecommissionproceedings;therefore,theonlyissue

in dispute iswhether NextEra is “adversely affected” by the order granting

CMP’spetitionfortheNECECproject.Seeid.

[¶15]NextEracontendsthattheorderadverselyaffectsitsMaine-based

wind and solar affiliates in a number of ways. While recognizing that the

Commissionfound“littlemerit”tosomeoftheseconcerns,wearenonetheless

satisfied that NextEra is adversely affected by the Commission’s decision in

otherwaysandthereforesatisfiessection1320’sstandingrequirements.See

id.

B. NontransmissionAlternatives

[¶16] NextEra contends that the Commission failed to follow the

statutory mandates of 35-A M.R.S. § 3132(2-C)(C) (2016),12 which

12 The Commission applied 35-A M.R.S. § 3132(2-D) (2018), the provision addressing NTA

investigationsthatwasineffectatthetimeoftheorder,insteadof35-AM.R.S.§3132(2-C)(C)(2016),

9

unambiguously mandated that CMP include in its petition the results of an

independent third-party investigation into the use of nontransmission

alternatives (NTAs). NextEra contends that, because the statute does not

expressly authorize the Commission to relieve CMP from that mandatory

requirement, CMP’s failure to submit the results of a third-party NTA

investigationisfataltoitspetition.

[¶17]Initsorder,theCommissionconcludedthat“becausethereisno

NTAthatcanfeasiblysubstitutefortheNECEC,thestatutedoesnotrequirethat

an independent analysis of the costs of potential NTAs be conducted.” The

CommissionstatedthatanNTAcouldnotmeetthepublicneedatalowercost

becausetherewillbenocosttoMainecustomersfortheproposedproject.The

Commission, citingTown ofMadison v. Public Utilities Commission, 682A.2d

231,234(Me.1996),concludedthat,despitetheplainlanguageofthestatute

requiring an NTA investigation, strictly adhering to the statute in this case

wouldleadto“absurdresults.”

[¶18]TheCommission’sconclusionthatrequiringanNTAinvestigation,

apparentlymandatoryunderthestatute,wouldbeabsurdandillogicaldoesnot

repealedbyP.L.2017,ch.201,§3(effectiveNov.1,2017),whichwasineffectatthetimeCMPfileditspetition.WeagreewithNextErathat§3132(2-C)(C)(2016)wastheappropriatestatutefortheCommissiontohaveapplied.SeeTerryv.St.RegisPaperCo.,459A.2d1106,1109(Me.1983).

10

constitute error. The plain language of section 3132(2-C)(C) mandates a

comparison of the transmission line’s total projected costs with the total

projectedcostsofthealternatives.35-AM.R.S.§3132(2-C)(C)(2016),repealed

byP.L. 2017, ch. 201, § 3 (effectiveNov.1, 2017). Additionally, 35-AM.R.S.

§3132(6) requires an analysis to explore less costly alternatives to the

proposedtransmissionline. Becausethisproposedtransmissionlinewillbe

constructedatnocosttoMaineratepayers,however,thereisnologicalreason

to undertake such a comparative cost analysis. In Trask v. Public Utilities

Commission,westatedthattheplainmeaningisonlyapplied“solongasitdoes

notleadtoanabsurd,illogical,orinconsistentresult.”1999ME93,¶7,731

A.2d 430 (quotation marks omitted). Here, the Commission reasonably

determined that reading the statute to require the undertaking and

considerationofafutile investigationintolower-costNTAswouldleadtoan

absurdandillogicalresult.

[¶19]TheCommissiondidnotcommitlegalerrorwhenitdecidedthat,

inthecontextofthisuniqueproceeding,CMPwasnotrequiredtofiletheresults

ofathird-partyinvestigationintonontransmissionalternatives.

11

C. PublicNeedStandard

[¶20] Next, NextEra contends that the Commissionmisconstrued the

plainandunambiguous languageof35-AM.R.S.§3132and failed tocomply

with the statutory scheme, including the statute’s mandate directing the

CommissiontoidentifyapublicneedfortheNECECproject.BecauseNextEra

is the party challenging the Commission’s decision, it has “the burden of

showingthatthe[Commission]’sactionwasarbitraryorbasedonanerrorof

law.”Cent.MainePowerCo.v.Pub.Utils.Comm’n,2014ME56,¶19,90A.3d

451(quotationmarksomitted).

[¶21]Section3132(6)requirestheCommissiontomakespecificfindings

regardingthe“publicneed”foraproposedtransmissionline,butthestatute

doesnotdefine“publicneed.”13

1. Interpreting“PublicNeed”

[¶22] We apply a two-part inquiry “[w]hen reviewing an agency’s

interpretationofastatutethatisbothadministeredbytheagencyandwithin

the agency’s expertise.” CompetitiveEnergy Servs. LLC v. Pub.Utils. Comm’n,

13NextEraalsoassertsthattheCommissionfailedtoidentifyapublicneedforacertainnumber

ofmegawattsofenergy,notcontracted for, that theNECEC iscapableofdelivering. Because thestatuterequiresadeterminationofpublicneedonlyforthetransmissionlineitself,andnotforitsparticularcapacity,wefindthisargumenttobeunpersuasiveanddonotaddressitfurther.

12

2003ME12,¶15,818A.2d1039. First,wedeterminedenovowhetherthe

statuteisambiguous.Id.Next,ifthestatuteisunambiguousweapplyitsplain

meaning,but if it isambiguouswe“reviewtheCommission’sconstructionof

the ambiguous statute for reasonableness.” Id. “Statutory language is

considered ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to different

interpretations.”Scammanv.Shaw’sSupermarkets,Inc.,2017ME41,¶14,157

A.3d223(quotationmarksomitted).

[¶23]Section3132provides,inpart,that“apersonmaynotconstruct

anytransmissionline...unlessthecommissionhasissuedacertificateofpublic

convenience and necessity approving construction.” Pursuant to section

3132(6),“thecommissionshallmakespecificfindingswithregardtothepublic

needfortheproposedtransmissionline. . . . [I]fthecommissionfindsthata

publicneedexists,afterconsideringwhethertheneedcanbeeconomicallyand

reliablymetusingnontransmissionalternatives, itshall issueacertificateof

publicconvenienceandnecessityforthetransmissionline.”(Emphasisadded.)

Althoughsection3132(6)doesnotdefine“publicneed,”itdoesatleastprovide

factorsfortheCommissiontoconsidertodeterminepublicneed:

Indeterminingpublicneed,thecommissionshall,ataminimum,take intoaccounteconomics, reliability,publichealth andsafety,scenic, historic and recreational values, state renewable energygenerationgoals,theproximityoftheproposedtransmissionline

13

to inhabited dwellings and alternatives to construction of thetransmission line, including energy conservation, distributedgenerationorloadmanagement.[¶24] Furthermore, the Commission rules do define “public need.”

Chapter330ofthoserulesestablishesfilingrequirementspursuanttosection

3132,andsection9(A)ofChapter330setsforththestandardsforgrantinga

CPCN,directingtheCommissiontomakespecific findingswithregardtothe

needfortheproposedtransmissionlineinaccordancewith3132(6).65-407

C.M.R. ch. 330, §9(A). Section 9(B) of Chapter 330 is titled “Public Need

Defined.”Itstates:

The Commission establishes public need by determining thatratepayerswillbenefitbytheproposedtransmissionline.Benefitsaredeterminedbasedupontheelectricalneedfortheline,takingintoaccount[thesection3132(6)factors]....Costisanimportantconsideration,butpublicneedcanbeestablished foraproposedtransmission line that is not the least cost alternative becauseaesthetic,environmentalorotherfactorsjustifyareasonablecostincrease.

Id.§9(B)(emphasisadded).

[¶25] The Commission interpreted the public need standard as

“essentially a general standard of meeting the public interest,” requiring a

carefulweighingof theproject’sbenefits and costs toMaine ratepayers and

residents.TheCommissioncontendsthat,“[u]nderthecircumstancesofthis

proceeding,” its applicationof thepublicneed standardwas consistentwith

14

section 3132(6) and Chapter 330. CMPmaintains that the statute does not

plainly compel a contrary result because the Commission’s “comparison of

costsandbenefitstoMaineandMaineratepayersispreciselywhatisrequired

inthepublicneedanalysis,asreflected insection3132(6),Chapter330,and

[this] Court’s previous definition of public necessity and convenience.” See

EnhancedCommc’nsofN.NewEnglandv.Pub.Utils.Comm’n,2017ME178,¶11

n.4,169A.3d408.

[¶26]Giventhebreadthoftheconceptof“publicneed”combinedwith

the absence of any legislative definition, wemust conclude that the term is

ambiguous,andwecannotsaythattheCommissionerredasmatteroflawby

concluding that the term “public need” is a general standard ofmeeting the

public interest. “An agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute it

administers is reviewedwith great deference andwill be upheld unless the

statuteplainlycompelsacontraryresult.”Cent.MainePowerCo.,2014ME56,

¶ 18, 90 A.3d 451 (quotationmarks omitted); see also Enhanced Commc’ns,

2017ME178,¶7,169A.3d408.TheCommission’sinterpretationofitsown

rules, regulations and procedures is similarly entitled to considerable

deference.EnhancedCommc’ns,2017ME178,¶7,169A.3d408;Cent.Maine

PowerCo.,2014ME56,¶18,90A.3d451.

15

[¶27] The Commission’s definition is consistent with its rules, the

legislative intent reflected in the statute, and Maine jurisprudence. See

EnhancedCommc’ns,2017ME178,¶11n.4,169A.3d408.Inthiscontext,the

Commission’sinterpretationoftheterm“publicneed”andthemannerinwhich

itistobedeterminedwasnoterror.

2. ApplicationofSection3132(6)

[¶28]WenowconsiderwhethertherecordsupportstheCommission’s

findingof apublicneed. Section3132(6) requires theCommission tomake

specific findingswithregard to thepublicneed foraproposed transmission

line. “Indeterminingpublicneed,theCommissionshall,ataminimum,take

intoaccounteconomics,reliability,publichealthandsafety,scenic,historicand

recreationalvalues,staterenewableenergygenerationgoals,theproximityof

theproposedtransmissionlinetoinhabiteddwellingsandalternativestothe

constructionofthetransmissionline....”35-AM.R.S.§3132(6).

[¶29]InadditiontoitsgeneralobjectiontotheCommission’sfindingof

apublicneedpursuanttosection3132(6),NextEraspecificallycontendsthat

the Commission failed to properly address Maine’s renewable energy

generationgoalsand theNECEC’sadverse impactonscenicandrecreational

values.

16

[¶30]Initscomprehensiveorder,theCommissiondiscussedthefactors

setoutinsection3132(6),includingtheissuesraisedbyNextEraconcerning

scenicandrecreationalvaluesandMaine’srenewableenergygenerationgoals.

The Commission found that the value to Maine resulting from the NECEC’s

energypricesuppressioneffectwouldamountto$14-$44millionannually,14

and capacity market price reduction for Maine residents in the amount of

$19million annually over the first ten years. It found that there would be

enhancementstotransmissionreliabilityandsupplyreliabilityanddiversity.

The Commission also found that the project would result in a reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions. Further, it found that the project would have a

positiveimpactonMaine’sgrossdomesticproduct,averaging$94-$98million

duringtheproject’sconstructionperiod.Allofthesefindingsaresupportedby

significantrecordevidence.

14TheCommission’sorderincludesachartcontainingasummaryofthebenefitstoMaineofthe

NECECandthestipulationprovisions.SeeCentralMainePowerCompany,RequestforApprovalofCPCNfortheNewEnglandCleanEnergyConnectConsistingoftheConstructionofa1,200MWHVDCTransmission Line from the Quebec-Maine Border to Lewiston (NECEC) and Related NetworkUpgrades, No. 2017-232, Order Granting Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity andApprovingStipulationat7(Me.P.U.C.May3,2019). ThevaluetoMaineofthewholesalemarketeffectsisestimatedatbetween$200millionand$500million,theannualmacroeconomiceffectstoMaineareestimatedtobeupwardsof$125million,anditisestimatedthatregionalcarbonemissionswillbereducedby3.0-3.6millionmetrictonsannually.Seeid.

17

a. AdverseImpact

[¶31] There is no dispute that the Commission found that the

transmission linewould have an adverse impact on scenic and recreational

values; tourism; and local economies. However, NextEra contends that the

Commission abused its discretion by deferring to the Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Land Use Planning Commission

(LUPC)ontheissueofmitigationoftheseadverseimpacts.NextEradoesnot

argue that the Commission failed to consider the impact on scenic and

recreational values—only that it did not properly considermitigation. This

argumentisunpersuasive.

[¶32]Indeterminingpublicneed,theCommissionmusttakescenicand

recreationalvaluesintoaccount.See35-AM.R.S.§3132(6).Section3132(6)

also provides that the Commission “shall . . . consider the findings of the

DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.” NextEraasserts that “there isno

language in the statutory scheme of [s]ection 3132 that authorizes the

Commission to delegate the consideration of the mitigation measures to

another state agency.” While the Commission recognized that it maintains

coextensivejurisdictionwiththeDEPandtheLUPCwithregardtoanyimpact

18

on scenic and recreational values, it didnotdefer to thoseagencies its own

considerationpursuanttosection3132(6).

[¶33] Following the mandates of section 3132(6), the Commission

properly considered scenic and recreational values and concluded that they

wouldbeadverselyimpactedbytheNECECproject.ThattheCommissiondid

not undertake consideration of any mitigation of those adverse impacts is

immaterialbecausethestatuteimposesnosuchobligationontheCommission.

Seeid.WerejectNextEra’sargumentonthispoint.

b. StateRenewableEnergyGenerationGoals

[¶34]Section3132(6)alsorequirestheCommissiontoconsiderMaine’s

renewable energygenerationgoals. TheCommission found that theNECEC

projectwouldnotadverselyimpactthosegoals.

[¶35] NextEraposits that theCommissionerredasamatterof law in

relegatingtheconsiderationoftheState’srenewableenergygenerationgoals

to a weighing of benefits and costs. NextEra asserts that the Commission

misinterpreted the relevant statutes andmade erroneous factual findings in

lightofthatmisinterpretation.15

15 NextEra also contends that theCommission failed tomake findings regarding theNECEC’s

high-voltagedirect-currentdesign,asopposedtoanalternating-currentdesign,andassertsthattheCommission could have conditioned the CPCN on an alternative NECEC design that would usealternating current technology. This argument fails formyriad reasons, oneofwhich is that the

19

[¶36]Assetforthintherelevantstatutoryprovisions,16theCommission

determined that the renewable energy generation goals to be considered

includethepromotionofadequate,reliable,anddiversesourcesofelectricity

supply,andthereductioningreenhousegasemissions.TheCommissionalso

concludedthattheMaineSolarEnergyAct,35-AM.R.S.§§3471-3474(2018),

andtheMaineWindEnergyAct,35-AM.R.S.§§3401-3404(2018),bearonthe

considerationofrenewableenergygenerationgoalsbyimplementingastate

policyofencouragingappropriately-sitedwindandsolarenergydevelopment,

andthereforemustbeconsideredaspartoftheanalysisofrenewableenergy

generationgoalspursuanttosection3132(6).

[¶37] The Commission considered the goals of renewable energy

generationaspartofitssection3132(6)analysis.Indoingso,theCommission

found that the NECEC project will result in incremental hydroelectric

NECECprojectasproposedwith thedirect-currentdesignwasselectedas thewinningbidandaseparateproposalusinganalternating-currentdesignwasnot.Additionally,theCommissionfoundthat the NECEC project, as designed with direct current technology, would not hinder Maine’srenewableenergygoalsandmayevenfacilitaterenewableenergydevelopment.Thesefindingsaresupportedbysubstantialrecordevidence.

16See35-AM.R.S.§3210(1)(2018);38M.R.S.§631(1)(2018).TheCommissionexplainedthatMaine’srenewable-energyportfoliostandardsaregovernedby35-AM.R.S.§3210(1),whichstates:

InordertoensureanadequateandreliablesupplyofelectricityforMaineresidentsandtoencouragetheuseofrenewable,efficientandindigenousresources,itisthepolicyof thisState to encourage the generationof electricity from renewable andefficient sources and todiversify electricityproductiononwhich residentsof thisStaterelyinamannerconsistentwiththissection.

20

generation;willreducegreenhousegasemissionsintheregion;willnothinder

Maine’s progress towards meeting its statutory renewable energy portfolio

requirementsandsolarandwindenergygoals;maybenefitfuturerenewable

energygenerationprojectsasaresultoftheupgradesthatISONewEngland

(ISO-NE)17hasalready identifiedasnecessary to the interconnectionofnew

renewable energy generation in western and northernMaine; will have no

impactonanyproposedrenewableenergygenerationprojects inMainethat

have a better interconnection queue position;18 and has the potential to

facilitaterenewablegeneration inMainebyproviding foradditional transfer

capacityatnocosttofuturegenerationdevelopers.Thesefactualfindingsare

supportedby substantial evidence in the record. SeeFriedmanv. Pub.Utils.

Comm’n,2016ME19,¶10,132A.3d183.

[¶38] Section 3132(6) requires only that the Commission take into

accountstaterenewableenergygenerationgoals—itdoesnotspecifyhowthe

17ISO-NEistheregionaltransmissionorganizationauthorizedbytheFederalEnergyRegulatory

CommissiontooperateNewEngland’spowergrid,administerNewEngland’swholesale-electricitymarkets,andensurethatNewEngland’selectricityneedsaremetthroughpower-systemplanning.SeeOurThreeCriticalRoles,ISONewEngland,https://www.iso-ne.com/about/what-we-do/three-roles(lastvisitedMarch12,2020).

18 “The ISO New England Interconnection Queue lists the current status of requests for theinterconnection of new or uprated (increased capacity) generating facilities in New England.”Interconnection Request Queue, ISO New England, https://www.iso-ne.com/system-planning/transmission-planning/interconnection-request-queue/ (last visited March 12, 2020). Queueposition“determinesorderforthepurposesofinterconnectionstudyandcostallocation.”Id.

21

Commission is toconsider thosegoals. Here, theCommissionmadespecific

factualfindingsandconsideredMaine’srenewableenergygenerationgoalsin

light of those findings as part of its overall public need analysis. The

Commission’sconclusionsregardingtheNECECprojectandMaine’sRenewable

EnergyGoalswerereasonableandconsistentwiththelaw.SeePineTreeTel.

&Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 634 A.2d 1302, 1304 (Me.1993) (“The

Commission's decision will not be disturbed if it results from a reasonable

exerciseofdiscretionandissupportedbysubstantialevidenceintherecord.”).

D. TheStipulation

[¶39]Duringthecourseoftheproceeding,CMPnegotiatedastipulation

with a number of the parties, pursuant to Chapter 110, Section 8(D) of the

Commission’sRules.ThestipulationwasjoinedbyCMP,theOfficeofthePublic

Advocate,theIndustrialEnergyConsumerGroup,theGovernor’sEnergyOffice,

theConservationLawFoundation,theAcadiaCenter,theWesternMountains

and Rivers Corporation, the City of Lewiston, the Maine State Chamber of

Commerce, the InternationalBrotherhoodofElectricalWorkersLocalUnion

104, and Friends of Maine Mountains. The thirty-eight-page stipulation

recommendedapprovalsand findingsregarding issuanceof theCPCN,CPCN

conditions,andnontransmissionalternatives. Thestipulatingpartiesagreed

22

that apublicneed exists for theNECECproject and that constructionof the

NECECprojectisinthepublicinterest.

[¶40]TheCommission’srulessetforthfourrequirementsforapproval

ofastipulation,includingthatthestipulatingpartiesrepresenta“sufficiently

broadspectrumofinterests”toensurethatthereisnoappearanceorrealityof

disenfranchisement. 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 110, § 8(D)(7). “Sufficiently broad

spectrumofinterests”isnotdefinedintherules,buthasbeeninterpretedby

theCommissionasprohibitingstipulationswherethesigningpartiesrepresent

only a narrow interest.19 This interpretation is entitled to deference. See

EnhancedCommc’ns,2017ME178,¶7,169A.3d408.

[¶41] WeareunpersuadedbyNextEra’sassertion that thestipulating

partiesdidnotrepresentasufficientlybroadspectrumofinterests.20Here,the

19SeeCentralMainePowerCompanyandPublicServiceofNewHampshire,RequestforCertificate

of Public Convenience and Necessity for theMaine Power Reliability Program Consisting of theConstructionofApproximately350Milesof345kVand115kVTransmissionLines,No.2008-255,Order Approving Stipulation at 20 (Me. P.U.C. June 10, 2010) (“[T]he primary purpose of theCommission’s first stipulation approval criterion . . . is to ensure that the Commission does notapprovestipulationswherethesigningpartiesrepresentonlyanarrowinterest.”);seealsoPublicUtilities Commission, Investigation into Verizon Maine’s Alternative Form of Regulation,No.2005-155, Order Approving Stipulation (Me. P.U.C. Oct. 3, 2007);Public Utilities Commission,InvestigationIntoRegulatoryAlternativesfortheNewEnglandTelephoneandTelegraphCompanyd/b/aNYNEX,No.94-123,Orderat5(Me.P.U.C.March17,1998).

20 NextEra also argues the Commission erred by approving the stipulation because certainprovisions relate toobligationsof entities outsideof theCommission’s jurisdiction. Because theCommission explicitly found that “even without the additional benefits provided by the CPCNConditionsset forthin [the]Stipulation . . . theNECECwouldmeetthestatutorypublicneedand

23

Commission foundthat thesignatories “representacomparablydiverseand

broadspectrumofinterests,”includingtheinterestsofMaineratepayers,large

industrial customers, members of the environmental community, large and

smallbusinesses,electricalworkers,andatleastoneaffectedmunicipality.The

CommissionalsogavesignificantweighttotheGovernor’sparticipationinthe

developmentof and support for thenegotiated stipulation—finding thather

support “enhance[d] the breadth of the spectrum of interests.” Given the

breadthanddiversityoftheinterestsofthesignatoriestothestipulation,the

Commission concluded that there was no appearance or reality of

disenfranchisement. That conclusion is consistent with the Commission’s

precedents interpreting what constitutes a “sufficiently broad spectrum of

interests.”TheCommissiondidnotabuseitsdiscretionwhenitconcludedthat

thestipulationsatisfiedtheapprovalcriteriacontainedinitsrules.See65-407

C.M.R.ch.110,§8(D).

[¶42]AlthoughtheCommissionconcludedthattheprovisionsincluded

in the stipulation “augment the benefits that will be realized by Maine

ratepayers, communities and the environment by funding mechanisms and

publicintereststandardsofTitle35-A,Section3132and,thus,wouldbegrantedaCPCN[,]”wedonotaddressthisargument.

24

programstoprovideraterelieftoMaineratepayers,benefitsfor low-income

customers, and support for a variety of other programs intended to benefit

Mainecommunitiesandtheenvironment,”theCommissiondidnotrelyupon

thestipulationinarrivingatitsdeterminationofpublicneedoritsdecisionto

grant the CPCN.21 Thus, any issue regarding the validity of the stipulation

becomes immaterial given that the Commission’s reasoning rested on

independentaspectsoftherecord.

III.CONCLUSION

[¶43] The Commission followed the proper procedure and there is

sufficientevidenceintherecordtosupportthefindingsitmade.Inshort,the

Commission reasonably interpreted and applied the relevant statutory

mandates in arriving at its decision to grant CMP a certificate of public

convenienceandnecessityfortheNECECProjectandinitsdecisiontoapprove

the stipulation. See 35-A M.R.S. § 3132. NextEra has not shown that the

21Inadditiontotheeconomicbenefitsprovidedbythestipulation,seesupranote9,thestipulation

conditions granting the CPCN on a preference for Maine workers; a commitment to long-termplanningfordecarbonizationintheregion;mitigationoftheNECEC’simpactontransmissionsystemandexistingand futureenergyresources inMaine; thesecuritizationofcertain fundsestablishedthrough the stipulation; and a support agreement for certain commitmentsmade as part of thestipulation. Finally, thestipulationprovides thatCMPwill transferandconveyownershipof theprojecttoNECECTransmissionLLC,awhollyownedsubsidiarywithintheAvangridNetworksfamilythatisnotasubsidiaryofCMP. Inordertoprotectratepayers,thetermsoftheproject’stransferincludearrangementsthatwilleffectivelyseparateCMPfromtherisksassociatedwiththeremainingdevelopmenteffortsandconstructionoftheProject.

25

Commission’sissuanceoftheCPCNorapprovalofthestipulationwasarbitrary

orotherwisebasedonanerroroflaw.SeeCent.MainePowerCo.,2014ME56,

¶25,90A.3d451.

Theentryis:

Order of the Public Utilities Commissionaffirmed.

JerrolA.Crouter,Esq.(orally),andAmyK.Olfene,Esq.,DrummondWoodsum,Portland,forappellantNextEraEnergyResources,LLCMitchellM.Tannenbaum,Esq.(orally),JordanD.McColman,Esq.,andAmyB.Mills, Esq., Maine Public Utilities Commission, Augusta, for appellee MainePublicUtilitiesCommissionAnthonyW.Buxton,Esq.,R.BenjaminBorowski,Esq.,andJosephG.Donahue,Esq.,PretiFlahertyBeliveau&Pachios,LLP,Portland, forappelleeIndustrialEnergyConsumerGroupCatherineR.Connors,Esq.,JaredS.deRosiers,Esq.(orally),andSarahB.Tracy,Esq.,PierceAtwoodLLP,Portland,forappelleeCentralMainePowerCompanyBarryJ.Hobbins,Esq.,OfficeofthePublicAdvocate,Augusta,forappelleeOfficeofthePublicAdvocatePublicUtilitiesCommissioncasenumber2017-00232FORCLERKREFERENCEONLY