Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 38
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 631 (2026)

Purposes

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Findings.  The Legislature finds and declares that the surface waters of the State constitute a valuable indigenous and renewable energy resource; and that hydropower development utilizing these waters is unique in its benefits and impacts to the natural environment, and makes a significant contribution to the general welfare of the citizens of the State for the following reasons.  
A. Hydropower is the state's only economically feasible, large-scale energy resource which does not rely on combustion of a fuel, thereby avoiding air pollution, solid waste disposal problems and hazards to human health from emissions, wastes and by-products. Hydropower can be developed at many sites with minimal environmental impacts, especially at sites with existing dams or where current type turbines can be used.   [PL 1983, c. 458, §18 (NEW).]
B. Like all energy generating facilities, hydropower projects can have adverse effects; in contrast with other energy sources, they may also have positive environmental effects. For example, hydropower dams can control floods and augment downstream flow to improve fish and wildlife habitats, water quality and recreational opportunities.   [PL 1983, c. 458, §18 (NEW).]
C. Hydropower is presently the state's most significant indigenous resource that can be used to free our citizens from their extreme dependence on foreign oil for peaking power.   [PL 1983, c. 458, §18 (NEW).]
[PL 1983, c. 458, §18 (NEW).]
2.  Policy and purpose.  The Legislature declares that hydropower justifies singular treatment. The Legislature further declares that it is the policy of the State to support and encourage the development of hydropower projects by simplifying and clarifying requirements for permits, while assuring reasonable protection of natural resources and the public interest in use of waters of the State. It is the purpose of this subarticle to require a single application and permit for the construction of all hydropower projects and for the reconstruction or structural alteration of certain projects, including water storage projects. The permit application process shall be administered by the Department of Environmental Protection, except that, for hydropower projects within the jurisdiction of the Maine Land Use Planning Commission, the commission shall administer the permit application process under this subarticle.  
[PL 1983, c. 458, §18 (NEW); PL 2011, c. 682, §38 (REV).]
3.  Encouragement of tidal and wave power development.  It is the policy of the State to encourage the attraction of appropriately sited development related to tidal and wave energy, including any additional transmission and other energy infrastructure needed to transport such energy to market, consistent with all state environmental standards; the permitting and siting of tidal and wave energy projects; and the siting, permitting, financing and construction of tidal and wave energy research and manufacturing facilities.  
[PL 2009, c. 615, Pt. A, §5 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1983, c. 458, §18 (NEW). PL 2009, c. 615, Pt. A, §5 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 682, §38 (REV).
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 4 cases, 2005–2020 · leading case: NextEra Energy Resources, LLC v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2020 ME 34 (Me. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2020 ME 34 (Me. 2020). “§ 3210(1) (2018); 38 M.R.S. § 631(1) (2018). The Commission explained that Maine’s renewable-energy portfolio standards are governed by 35-A M.”
Bertl v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2005 ME 115 (Me. 2005). “[¶ 11] Bertl also argues, for the first time on appeal, that in construing the Rule the way it has, the Commission has ignored legislative mandates that it encourage small hydroelectric power and other renewable energy sources.”
Matteson v. Batchelder (Me. Super. Ct 2008). · cites it 2× “The Maine Waterway Development and Conservation Act Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' claim falls within the purview of the Maine Waterway Development and Conservation Act ("Act"), 38 M.R.S.A. §§ 631 et seq; that the Act applies "to [a]ny person whose lands are damaged by being…”
Save Our Sebasticook v. Maine Bd. of Env't Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2006). “See 38 M.R.S.A. § 631 Nevertheless, removal or breachng of the dam would have an effect on water quality and there does not appear to be any other statute with a more logical application to this type of proposal.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 631(1) — 1 case
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2020 ME 34 (Me. 2020). “§ 3210(1) (2018); 38 M.R.S. § 631(1) (2018). The Commission explained that Maine’s renewable-energy portfolio standards are governed by 35-A M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 631(2) — 1 case
Matteson v. Batchelder (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “The Maine Waterway Development and Conservation Act Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' claim falls within the purview of the Maine Waterway Development and Conservation Act ("Act"), 38 M.R.S.A. §§ 631 et seq; that the Act applies "to [a]ny person whose lands are damaged by being…”
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.