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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 35-A, § 101 (2026)

Statement of purpose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The purpose of this Title is to ensure that there is a regulatory system for public utilities in the State and for other entities subject to this Title that is consistent with the public interest and with other requirements of law and to provide for reasonable licensing requirements for competitive electricity providers. The basic purpose of this regulatory system as it applies to public utilities subject to service regulation under this Title is to ensure safe, reasonable and adequate service, to assist in minimizing the cost of energy available to the State’s consumers, to ensure that the rates of public utilities subject to rate regulation are just and reasonable to customers and public utilities and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet the greenhouse gas emissions reduction levels set forth in Title 38, section 576‑A.   [PL 2021, c. 279, §1 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1987, c. 141, §A6 (NEW). PL 1999, c. 398, §A2 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 398, §§A104,105 (AFF). PL 2011, c. 623, Pt. D, §2 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 369, Pt. F, §1 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 279, §1 (AMD).
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 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: Ed Friedman v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2016 ME 19 (Me. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ed Friedman v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2016 ME 19 (Me. 2016). “The Commission must “ensure safe, reasonable and adequate service”, pursuant -to -35-A M.R.S. § 101 (2015), See also 35-A M.”
Friedman v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 48 A.3d 794 (Me. 2012). · cites it 2× “See 35-A M.R.S. §§ 101,103 (2011). The Commission and CMP contend that the complaint was properly dismissed in all *796 respects.”
Pub. Advocate v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 1998 ME 218 (Me. 1998). · cites it 2× “1997), the Commission has the power to approve rates which are "just and reasonable," and "[e]very unjust or unreasonable charge for public utility service is prohibited and declared unlawful.”
Dep't of Corr. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 968 A.2d 1047 (Me. 2009). “” See 35-A M.R.S. § 101 (2008) (emphasis added).”
In Re E. Maine Elec. Coop., Inc., 121 B.R. 917 (Bankr. D. Me. 1990). “See 35-A M.R.S.A. § 101, et seq. 23 . Following the oral rulings of October 16, 1990, the MPUC filed a letter dated October 19, 1990, from Mr.”
Maine Coalition to Stop Smart Meters v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n et al., 2023 ME 8 (Me. 2023). · cites it 2× “is to ensure safe, reasonable and adequate service,” 35-A M.R.S. § 101 (2022). To decide whether CMP’s proposal to replace older analog meters with solid-state meters would result in safe, reasonable, and adequate facilities and service, see 5 35-A M.”
Indus. Energy Consum. Grp. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2001 ME 94 (Me. 2001). “35-A M.R.S.A. § 101 (Supp.2000). The basic purposes then, are to (1) ensure safe, reasonable, and adequate services and (2) to ensure that rates are “just and reasonable” for both the customer and the public utility.”
Doc v. Puc, 2009 ME 40 (Me. 2009). “" See 35-A M.R.S. § 101 (2008) (emphasis added).”
Friedman v. Cent. Maine Power Co. (D. Me. 2021). “3d at 800), pursuant to the PUC’s statutory mandate to “ensure safe, reasonable and adequate service,” 35-A M.R.S.A. § 101 (West 2021); see Friedman I, 2012 ME 90, ¶ 10 , 48 A.”
Levesque v. Cent. Maine Power Co. (Me. Super. Ct 2019). “See 35-A M.R.S. § 101; Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co.”
Gen. Marine Constr. Corp. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2022 ME 20 (Me. 2022). “See 35-A M.R.S. §§ 101, 103(2)(A) (2021) (“All public utilities .”
Smith v. Cent. Maine Power Co. (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “1), PUC Chapter 910, the Maine Overhead High Voltage Line Safety Act, 35-A MRSA §101 et seq, and applicable case law.”
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.