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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 35, § 51 (2026)

Safe facilities; just and reasonable rates

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1975, c. 409 (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 23 cases, 1970–1986 · leading case: Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 455 A.2d 34 (Me. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 455 A.2d 34 (Me. 1983). · cites it 21× “5% cost of capital but for its alleged infirmities with respect to conservation and cogeneration, the Commission's decision, pursuant to 35 M.R.S.A. § 51 (1975), [2] to lower CMP's cost of capital to 15.”
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 390 A.2d 8 (Me. 1978). · cites it 2× “As we earlier said, in setting rates that are “just and reasonable”, as required by 35 M.R.S.A. § 51, the Public Utilities Commission must make four basic determinations: (1) what are the enterprise’s gross utility revenues under the rate structure examined; (2) what are its…”
Mechanic Falls Water Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 381 A.2d 1080 (Me. 1977). · cites it 2× “This choice resulted in a lesser total tax being paid by the consolidated group than would have been due if each member of the group had filed an individual return.”
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 448 A.2d 272 (Me. 1982). “Similarly, 35 M.R.S.A. § 51 (1978) imposes on the Commission the duty and responsibility of setting just and reasonable rates for utility service rendered within the State of Maine.”
First Hartford Corp. v. Cent. Maine Power Co., 425 A.2d 174 (Me. 1981). · cites it 3× “e 1974 shutdown of Maine Yankee, application of such clauses resulted in revenue exceeding that derivable from CMP’s applicable approved base rate, (3) that the Commission had no legal authority to permit the utility to apply such clauses, and (4) that, even if such clauses were…”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 382 A.2d 302 (Me. 1978). “35 M.R.S.A. § 51; New England Telephone and Telegraph Company v.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 405 A.2d 153 (Me. 1979). “” The Commission, however, contends that notwithstanding the legality of such discount, its promotional effect makes it unreasonable in the present period of energy shortages and rising marginal costs of producing electricity.”
Maine Water Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 388 A.2d 493 (Me. 1978). “Included in the just and reasonable rates of 35 M.R.S.A. § 51 are the properly incurred expenses of a utility in providing a service to its customers.”
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 470 A.2d 772 (Me. 1984). “2d 512 (1955); 35 M.R.S.A. § 51. The value of service to the consumer varies over time.”
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 362 A.2d 741 (Me. 1976). “See: 35 M.R.S.A. § 51. 20 , The entire text of this section reads: “The provisions of chapters 1-10 of this title shall be interpreted and construed liberally in order to accomplish the purposes thereof, and where any specific power or authority is given the commission by the…”
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 376 A.2d 448 (Me. 1977). “We prefer a reading of § 69 to permit the flexibility to issue such an order before its effective date, and specify therein such effective date. 9 Far more important, the overriding purpose of the entire public utility statute, and of § 69 in particular, is to seek to assure, to…”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 436 A.2d 880 (Me. 1981). “2d at 454 ; 35 M.R.S.A. § 51. Prior to the 1917 legislation, a public utility was permitted to establish rates without regulatory constraints until its rates were determined to be unjust and unreasonable.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
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.