Conservation Law Foundation v. Public Utilities Commission

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the Maine Public Utilities Commission’s approval of a stipulation concerning Efficiency Maine Trust’s Third Triennial Plan for energy efficiency. The court held that the Commission reasonably interpreted and applied statutory requirements concerning regional best practices, gross and net efficiency savings, and funding for cost-effective natural gas efficiency measures. The court affirmed the Commission’s order.

Holdings

1. The statute is ambiguous as to how the Commission must make use of regional best practices. The Commission reasonably interpreted 35-A M.R.S. § 10110(4-A)(B) to require a blended, three-part analysis considering whether calculations are reasonable, based on sound evidence, and make use of best practices across the region; it was not required to rely exclusively on the AESC report.
2. The Commission reasonably complied with 35-A M.R.S. § 10110(4-A) by considering gross savings in determining maximum achievable cost-effective savings while using net savings to screen measures funded with ratepayer dollars. The statute does not require an independent maximum-savings calculation based exclusively on gross savings.
3. The Commission did not err or abuse its discretion by basing its determination of natural-gas maximum achievable cost-effective savings on historical data and approving the stipulation rather than adopting the Trust's projections.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commission violated 35-A M.R.S. § 10110(4-A)(B) by approving avoided-cost calculations and discount rates that did not exclusively use the AESC report as the regional best practice.
2. Whether the Commission violated 35-A M.R.S. § 10110(4-A) by permitting benefit-to-cost ratios for electric energy-efficiency measures to be determined on a net basis while also considering gross savings.
3. Whether the Commission violated 35-A M.R.S. §§ 10104(4) and 10111(2) by determining natural-gas maximum achievable cost-effective energy-efficiency savings using historical data rather than the Trust's future projections and by approving funding below the Trust's asserted potential.

Disposition

affirmed