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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 35, § 69 (2026)

Public hearings to investigate proposed changes in rates of public utilities; suspension pending hearing

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1977, c. 75, §1 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 438, §3 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 694, §1 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 433, §3 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 481, §A73 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 635, §2 (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 18 cases, 1974–1984 · leading case: New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 362 A.2d 741 (Me. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 362 A.2d 741 (Me. 1976). · cites it 9× “The History of the Proceedings In response to the above-described October 8, 1974 rate-filing, the Commission, on November 6, 1974, acting pursuant to 35 M.R.S.A. § 69, 3 suspended the entirety of the schedule proposed by New England and thus prevented its taking effect.”
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 448 A.2d 272 (Me. 1982). · cites it 4× “It raises procedural, evidentiary and substantive questions of law and fact.”
Mechanic Falls Water Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 381 A.2d 1080 (Me. 1977). · cites it 2× “Pending a final determination, the Commission suspended the proposed rates of each company as permitted under 35 M.R.S.A. § 69 (§ 69) for an initial three-month period and then for an additional five months.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 436 A.2d 880 (Me. 1981). · cites it 3× “44, § 1 (now 35 M.R.S.A. § 69 5 ) governed the implementation of non-freight rates and permitted the Commission to suspend rates proposed by a utility pending the Commission’s investigation into their justness and reasonableness.”
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 354 A.2d 753 (Me. 1976). · cites it 2× “Acting pursuant to 35 M.R.S.A. § 69, the Commission entered an order of suspension *755 thereby preventing New England’s revised schedule from becoming effective, automatically, upon the expiration of 30 days under 35 M.”
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 390 A.2d 8 (Me. 1978). “35 M.R.S.A. § 69. Priest explains why initial rate design is for management: Once a utility’s revenue requirements have been determined, initial rate design should be, and usually is, for management.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 433 A.2d 331 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “See 35 M.R.S.A. § 69. Meanwhile, on April 2, 1980, intervenor status was granted to ail parties filing petitions for intervention.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 405 A.2d 153 (Me. 1979). “Pursuant to 35 M.R.S.A. § 69 the Commission, by Order dated February 13, 1978, suspended the proposed rates for a period of three months from February 15, 1978, in order to conduct public hearings.”
Maine Water Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 388 A.2d 493 (Me. 1978). “The towns of Oakland, Damariscotta, Newport, Freeport, and Wiscasset were granted permission to intervene and participated in the hearings.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 416 A.2d 1240 (Me. 1980). · cites it 2× “3 From May 8, 1978, through August 9, 1978, the Commission held 27 days of hearings, pursuant to 35 M.R.S.A. § 69, on the. utility’s revised schedule of rates.”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 395 A.2d 414 (Me. 1978). “Pursuant to its authority under 35 M.R.S.A. § 69, the Commission suspended the proposed rates and proceeded to conduct an investigation into their reasonableness.”
Mars Hill & Blaine Water Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 397 A.2d 570 (Me. 1979). “Pending a final determination, the Commission suspended the proposed rates of each company, pursuant to 35 M.R.S.A. § 69, for an initial three-month period and then for an additional five-month period.”
Show all 18 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.