Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 35-A, § 309 (2026)

Adherence to rate schedules; change in form of schedules

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Adherence to schedules. Except as otherwise provided in section 703, it is unlawful for any public utility to charge, demand, collect or receive, for any service performed by it within the State or for any service in connection with that performance, a greater or lesser compensation than is specified in such printed schedules as may at the time be in force, or to demand, collect or receive any rate, toll or charge not specified in the schedules. The rates, tolls and charges named in the schedule are the lawful rates, tolls and charges until they are changed as provided in this Title.

[PL 1987, c. 141, Pt. A, §6 (NEW).]

2. Exception. Notwithstanding subsection 1, when a public utility changes its rates, tolls or charges pursuant to any provision of this Title, the commission may for billing purposes, order that the change be applied to some or all service reflected in meter readings on or after the effective date of the change, or to such other period as it determines just and reasonable.

[PL 1987, c. 141, Pt. A, §6 (NEW).]

3. Form of schedules. The commission may prescribe such changes in the form in which the schedules are issued by any public utility as the commission finds to be expedient.

[PL 1987, c. 141, Pt. A, §6 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1987, c. 141, §A6 (NEW).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case: Bruce D. Taylor v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2016 ME 71 (Me. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bruce D. Taylor v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2016 ME 71 (Me. 2016). · cites it 2× “[¶ 9] Taylor also makes several arguments regarding the failure of the proposed agreement to satisfy the statutory criteria necessary for approval, namely, 35-A M.R.S. § 309 (2015), regarding tariff rates; 35-A M.”

Quirion v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 684 A.2d 1294 (Me. 1996). · cites it 2× “35-A M.R.S.A. § 309 (1989). 4 Quirion argued before the Commission that he would have billed for those years, but a PUC staff member made an oral representation to him that he could not issue bills for water service while his rates were under investigation.”

Off. of the Pub. Advocate v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n et al., 2023 ME 77 (Me. 2023). “in section 703, it is unlawful for any public utility to charge, demand, collect or receive, for any service performed by it within the State or for any service in connection with that performance, a greater or lesser compensation than is specified in such printed schedules as…”

Quiland, Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2008 ME 135 (Me. 2008). “Second, even if a utility is deemed to have good cause to file a change in a schedule less than thirty days before its effective date, section 35-A M.R.S. § 309 (2007) nonetheless makes it unlawful for a utility to charge, demand, collect, or receive a greater or lesser…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 35-A, § 309(1) — 3 cases

Bruce D. Taylor v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2016 ME 71 (Me. 2016). “[¶ 9] Taylor also makes several arguments regarding the failure of the proposed agreement to satisfy the statutory criteria necessary for approval, namely, 35-A M.R.S. § 309 (2015), regarding tariff rates; 35-A M.”

Quirion v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 684 A.2d 1294 (Me. 1996). “35-A M.R.S.A. § 309 (1989). 4 Quirion argued before the Commission that he would have billed for those years, but a PUC staff member made an oral representation to him that he could not issue bills for water service while his rates were under investigation.”

Off. of the Pub. Advocate v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n et al., 2023 ME 77 (Me. 2023). “in section 703, it is unlawful for any public utility to charge, demand, collect or receive, for any service performed by it within the State or for any service in connection with that performance, a greater or lesser compensation than is specified in such printed schedules as…”

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.