Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 35
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 35, § 294 (2026)

Decision; extension of service

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1971, c. 439, §16 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 433, §5 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 481, §C14 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 635, §4 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 141, §A5 (RP).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1966–1998 · leading case: New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 390 A.2d 8 (Me. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 390 A.2d 8 (Me. 1978). · cites it 5× “35 M.R.S.A. § 294. This section authorizes the Commission, in its discretion, to substitute reasonable rate schedules upon a finding that the schedules proposed by a public utility are unjust, unreasonable, insufficient, unjustly discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of law.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 395 A.2d 414 (Me. 1978). · cites it 7× “” In addition, Bangor Hydro filed a “Motion to Separate Matters Under Investigation and to Dismiss as to Bangor Hydro-Electric Company,” on the ground that the portion of the Commission’s investigation with respect to the effect of 35 M.R.S.A. §§ 294, 2301 and 2302 should be…”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 436 A.2d 880 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “In so ruling, the Commission noted that the language of § 69 authorized it to issue an order affecting proposed rates “as would be proper in a proceeding initiated upon complaint or upon motion of the commission in any rate investigation.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 416 A.2d 1240 (Me. 1980). · cites it 3× “He concluded that the sensitivity study and the cost study show that even under the utility’s proposed rates, the residential rate of return is below average and the GST rate is above average. By decree dated October 13, 1978, the Commission disallowed the utility’s schedule…”
Pub. Advocate v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 1998 ME 218 (Me. 1998). · cites it 2× “[4] Title 35 M.R.S.A. § 294 (now 35-A M.R.S.A. § 1306) provided in relevant part: If upon such formal public hearing the rates, tolls, charges, schedules or Joint rates shall be found to be unjust, unreasonable, insufficient or unjustly discriminatory or otherwise in violation…”
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 362 A.2d 741 (Me. 1976). “17 One argument (made by New England) in favor of a Commission power to order refunds and surcharges relies on interpretating 35 M.R.S.A. § 294 to confer a broad authority on the Commission to attach “regulations” to rate schedules — regulations which, it is said, may encompass…”
Maine Pub. Serv. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 490 A.2d 1218 (Me. 1985). “The Commission continued: In the absence of such offers, the risks associated with further participation in Seabrook I may well outweigh the benefits for Maine consumers, and further expenditure by Maine utilities under such circumstances would be an unreasonable act under 35…”
Biddeford & Saco Gas Co. v. Portland Gas Light Co., 233 A.2d 730 (Me. 1967). “35 M.R.S.A. § 294 in part 4 provides that: “The commission may authorize any public utility organized by special Act of the Legislature to furnish or extend its service in, to or through any city or town notwithstanding any territorial limitations, express or implied, in the…”
Poland Tel. Co. v. Pine Tree Tel. & Tel. Co., 218 A.2d 487 (Me. 1966). “Section 2303 (Section 29 in the 1913 Act) is said to compel the construction of Sections 2301 and 2302 to cover Poland.”
In Re Powell, 358 A.2d 522 (Me. 1976). “35 M.R.S.A. §§ 294, 296. No grant of additional authority, the argument continues, should have been allowed until the existing carrier had been given an opportunity to furnish such additional service.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.