MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2025 ME 64 Docket: PUC-24-322 Argued: March 5, 2025 Decided: July 15, 2025
Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, HORTON, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ.
SNAKEROOT SOLAR, LLC
v.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
DOUGLAS, J.
[¶1] Snakeroot Solar, LLC, appeals from an order of the Public Utilities
Commission denying its petition for a good-cause exemption under 35-A M.R.S.
§ 3209-A(7) (2025) from the statute’s December 31, 2024, deadline—the date
by which certain electric generating facilities must have “reach[ed] commercial
operation” in order to participate in Maine’s net energy billing program.
Without the exemption, Snakeroot’s proposed photovoltaic generating facility
in Pittsfield would be ineligible for net energy billing. Snakeroot contends that
the Commission erred in its interpretation of the statute’s good-cause
exemption; the Commission’s findings are unsupported by the record evidence;
and its denial of the exemption constituted an abuse of discretion. We affirm
the Commission’s order. 2
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Net Energy Billing Program
[¶2] Since the 1980s, Maine’s net energy billing1 (NEB) program has
promoted alternative energy sources by allowing customers to offset their
electric bills using the output from renewable power generators such as
home-installed solar panels. In 2019, the Legislature significantly expanded the
NEB program to permit utility customers with an interest in an electric
generating facility with a capacity of up to five megawatts using certain
“renewable fuel or technology,” see 35-A M.R.S. § 3210(2)(B-3) (2025), to
participate in the program. P.L. 2019, ch. 478, §§ A-3, A-4 (effective
Sept. 19, 2019) (codified as amended at 35-A M.R.S. §§ 3209-A, 3209-B (2025))
(“2019 NEB Act”).2
[¶3] The 2019 NEB Act prompted a sharp spike in the development of
Maine solar projects with generating capacities between two and five
1“Net energy billing” is defined as “a billing and metering practice under which a customer is billed on the basis of the difference between the kilowatt-hours delivered by a transmission and distribution utility to the customer over a billing period and the kilowatt-hours delivered by the customer to the transmission and distribution utility over the billing period, taking into account accumulated unused kilowatt-hour credits from the previous billing period.” 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-A(1)(C) (2025).
2 In addition to amending certain provisions in 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-A, the 2019 NEB Act enacted a
new section, codified at 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-B (2025), directed at “commercial and institutional customers.” The provisions of section 3209-B are not at issue here. 3
megawatts seeking to interconnect to the electrical grid, with the result of
substantially increasing utilities’ stranded costs.3 This so-called “solar gold
rush” thus gave rise to concerns that, absent intervention, rates would increase
sharply. Legis. Rec. H-750 (1st Spec. Sess. 2021); see also infra n.4.
Consequently, in 2021 the Legislature amended the 2019 NEB Act to curb
development and contain the projected impact on electricity rates.4 See P.L.
2021, ch. 390, § 1 (effective Oct. 18, 2021) (codified as amended at 35-A M.R.S.
§ 3209-A(7)) (“2021 Amendment”).5
[¶4] The 2021 Amendment set a total statewide target of 750 megawatts
of generating capacity for development of commercially operational
distributed generation resources6 participating in the NEB program. Id. The
3 “Stranded costs” are defined as “a utility’s legitimate, verifiable and unmitigable costs made unrecoverable as a result of the restructuring of the electric industry.” 35-A M.R.S. § 3208(1) (2025). Stranded costs are spread out among ratepayers by the Commission in the process of rate-setting. The Commission has determined that NEB costs should generally be treated like other stranded costs. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, Investigation of Rate Treatment of NEB Program Costs, No. 2021-360, Order at 8-10 (Me. P.U.C. Mar. 11, 2022). See generally Indus. Energy Consumer Grp. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2024 ME 60, 320 A.3d 437, for a more detailed discussion of stranded costs.
4 Legis. Rec. H-750-51 (1st Spec. Sess. 2021); Legis. Rec. S-1051-52 (1st Spec. Sess. 2021); see infra
¶¶ 31-32.
5 The statute was amended again in 2023, but the later amendments have no impact on this appeal. See P.L. 2023, ch. 230, § 1 (effective Oct. 25, 2023) (codified as amended at 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-A(8)); P.L. 2023, ch. 411, § 2 (effective Oct. 25, 2023) (codified at 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-A(9)).
6 A “distributed generation resource” refers to “an electric generating facility that uses a renewable fuel or technology . . . and is located in the service territory of a transmission and distribution utility.” 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-A(1)(B). 4
legislation established milestones with mandatory deadlines applicable to
projects with a generating capacity of between two and five megawatts,
including those under development at the time. See 35 M.R.S.
§ 3209-A(7)(A)-(E). A project was required to meet each milestone to
participate in the NEB program. See id.7 The final milestone in section
3209-A(7)(E)—and the one that prompted Snakeroot’s petition for a
good-cause exemption—provides as follows:
E. In order for a distributed generation resource to be used for net energy billing, the following must be met on or before December 31, 2024:
(1) The proposed distributed generation resource must reach commercial operation by the date specified in the net energy billing agreement or by the date specified with an allowable modification to that agreement.8
Id. § 3209-A(7)(E)(1). The 2021 Amendment also included a provision
allowing a developer of a distributed generation resource that could not meet
one or more of the milestones to petition the Commission “for a good-cause
7 The milestones in the 2021 Amendment set deadlines for, among other things, executing an interconnection agreement; commencing the interconnection study process; certifying that all applicable permit applications had been submitted to and accepted by the Department of Environmental Protection and certifying receipt of all necessary nonministerial permits from local authorities; and reaching full commercial operation. See 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-A(7)(A)-(E). The parties agree that Snakeroot Solar has met all milestone deadlines except the final one, which required that it reach commercial operation by December 31, 2024. Id. § 3209-A(7)(E).
8 Snakeroot’s NEB agreement does not alter the statutory deadline of December 31, 2024. 5
exemption due to external delays outside of the entity’s control.” Id.
§ 3209-A(7).
B. Overview of the Interconnection Process
[¶5] To initiate development of a distributed generation resource to be
used for net energy billing under the 2019 NEB Act, as amended by the 2021
Amendment, a project developer and the transmission and distribution (T&D)
utility9 in whose service territory the proposed project is located enter into two
agreements: (i) an interconnection agreement, which governs the connection
of the resource to the utility’s system and its ongoing operation thereafter,
65-407 C.M.R. ch. 324, § 2(EE) (effective Nov. 20, 2023); 35-A M.R.S.
§ 3209-A(7)(A)(1), and (ii) an NEB agreement, which governs credits for excess
energy exported to the grid, see 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-A(7)(A)(2).
[¶6] A proposed project undergoes a complex review process overseen
by the T&D utility to assess the impact of its interconnection on the electrical
grid. See 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 324, § 1. Because the grid is regional, the
interconnection process is subject to oversight in certain instances by ISO New
England, an independent, federally regulated organization formed to
9A “Transmission and Distribution Utility” or “T&D utility” is the entity that owns, controls, operates, or manages an electric transmission and distribution plant for compensation within the State. 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 324, § 2(MMM) (effective Nov. 20, 2023). 6
“coordinate, control, and monitor the operation of a regional bulk electric
power system . . . to ensure the safety and reliability of the system.”
TransCanada Power Mktg. Ltd. v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm’n, 811 F.3d 1, 5 (D.C.
Cir. 2015); see also Emera Me. v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm’n, 854 F.3d 662, 666
(D.C. Cir. 2017); NextEra Energy Res., LLC v. Me. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 2020 ME 34,
¶ 37 n.17, 227 A.3d 1117. ISO New England also administers a separate “queue”
of projects seeking interconnection to a transmission system within the
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).10
See NextEra Energy Res., LLC, 2020 ME 34, ¶ 37 n.18, 227 A.3d 1117; see also
infra n.12.
[¶7] Each interconnection agreement requires that a proposed project
undertake and complete a transmission study. The transmission study, which
is administered by the T&D utility, 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 324, § 14(J), assesses
potential impacts that the proposed generating facility may have on the
reliability, stability, and performance of the electrical grid and overall power
system. Id. Projects are categorized by level based on their size, complexity,
10 Projects subject to FERC jurisdiction are typically larger generators interconnecting to high-voltage transmission lines managed by the regional ISO (such as ISO New England) or selling power at wholesale in interstate commerce. See 16 U.S.C.A. § 824(b)(1) (Westlaw through Pub. L. No. 119-18) (granting FERC authority over transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and the sale of electric energy wholesale in interstate commerce, while expressly excluding jurisdiction over facilities used for generation of electric energy distributed only locally). 7
and potential impact of their generating systems. See id. §§ 1, 2(JJ)–(MM). The
interconnection process varies in complexity depending on the level of the
project. See id.
[¶8] Certain distributed generation projects with a capacity of greater
than one megawatt that will impact the regional transmission system require
approval under Section I.3.9 of ISO New England’s Transmission, Markets, and
Services Tariff (“Section I.3.9 approval”).11 Additionally, Section I.3.9. approval
may be required where multiple projects with a combined generating capacity
of twenty megawatts or more propose to interconnect in a defined local area.
When this occurs, ISO New England requires a transmission study for all the
projects with a capacity greater than one megawatt in that area be conducted
as a formal group analysis known as a “cluster study,” rather than as individual,
sequential studies. A cluster study offers a more comprehensive, expeditious
review by grouping projects in a defined area based on the projects’ maturity
and proximity. Each proposed project seeking interconnection must submit its
11 Section I.3.9 approval is a separate review process that applies to projects with a capacity greater than one megawatt that will have a cumulative impact on the regional power system. As part of its responsibility to ensure grid stability, ISO New England sets parameters for the study in Section I.3.9. Section I.3.9 approval means that ISO New England has determined that the proposed interconnection will not have a significant adverse effect on the reliability of the regional electric grid. 8
study “in such form, manner and detail as the ISO may prescribe.” ISO New
England Transmission, Markets, and Services Tariff, Section I.3.9.
[¶9] The duration and complexity of the cluster study process varies
considerably depending on a number of factors, including, for example, the
number of projects seeking to interconnect, their respective generation
capacities, the locus of their connection to the grid, and the overall condition of
the grid. Projects involved in a cluster study may encounter additional
complications, including a phenomenon known in the industry as
“freefalling.”12 When this happens, a cluster study may have to be restarted or
adjusted in order to account for the impacts of a FERC-level generator’s
interconnection, and this delays the final review and approval of studies of
12 Interconnection requests are placed in order in a queue. See 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 324, § 14(D). A project like Snakeroot’s that is seeking to connect locally to a T&D utility’s distribution system is considered a “distribution-level” project and is placed in a “distribution queue.” Larger projects that connect to the high-voltage transmission system managed by ISO New England are placed in a separate, FERC-jurisdictional queue. ISO New England reviews and studies the interconnection requests in the order that they appear in its queue. Distribution-level projects, by contrast, are studied separately and, while subject to ISO New England review, are not formally part of ISO New England’s queue. “Freefalling” refers to a pause or delay in the cluster study process of distribution- level projects caused by ISO New England’s prioritization of higher-queued “transmission-level” projects. The Commission described “freefalling” this way:
Projects participating in a cluster study are not formally a part of the ISO-NE queue because they are distribution level projects. Because of this status, cluster study projects are subject to ‘freefall’ from ISO-NE, meaning that if an interconnecting generator in ISO-NE’s FERC queue impacts the same transmission area as the projects in the cluster study, the cluster study is put on hold while ISO-NE first studies the interconnecting generator in its queue. 9
other distribution-level projects. These and other complications inherent in the
process affect the time needed to finalize the study and secure approval.
[¶10] Once a cluster study is successfully completed, formal Section I.3.9
approval is issued by ISO New England.13 An approved study may identify
modifications or upgrades that are necessary to the electrical grid in order to
accommodate interconnection. The administering T&D utility determines
what, if any, equipment and construction are necessary to implement the
upgrades; establishes a construction schedule for the work required; and
invoices the developer to cover the associated costs.
[¶11] Between completion of the cluster study and full payment for
distribution upgrades, projects seeking interconnection at the time Snakeroot’s
project was under review were still at risk of additional delays due to a second
phenomenon known in the industry as “leapfrogging.”14 A “leapfrogged”
13 Once ISO New England is satisfied with the study, it presents the proposal to a technical committee of the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) that advises on the design and oversight of reliability standards for the New England power grid. If the committee finds no adverse impact, ISO New England issues a final Section I.3.9 approval.
14 “Leapfrogging” refers to a practice that was permitted under the Commission’s rules in effect during the relevant time period here. The rules allowed smaller projects to proceed with interconnection ahead of earlier-queued, larger projects that had not yet paid their full distribution upgrade costs. A “leapfrogged” project was bumped to a lower queue position and potentially subject to a revised transmission study to assess the impact of the newly elevated project’s interconnection. The Commission has amended its rules to eliminate this requirement. Pub. Utils. Comm., Amendments to Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (Chapter 324), No. 2023-00103, Order Adopting Rule and Statement of Factual and Policy Basis at 11 (Me. P.U.C. Nov. 3, 2023). 10
project typically had to undergo a re-study to account for the effect of the
“leapfrogging” project’s interconnection on the power grid. Once the revised
study was approved, the “leapfrogged” project’s interconnection agreement
was amended and the utility issued a final invoice for the portion of any
necessary upgrades. A project cannot be connected to the grid and thus “reach
commercial operation” until the invoice has been paid in full, all upgrades are
successfully completed, and the project is approved by the T&D utility to
operate. See 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 324, § 14(T)–(V).
C. Snakeroot’s Proposed Project
[¶12] In May 2020, Snakeroot submitted an application to the
Commission to construct and interconnect a 4.98-megawatt photovoltaic
generating facility in Pittsfield, a location in Central Maine Power Company’s
(CMP) service territory. Snakeroot Solar’s application had first position in the
queue at the time. Snakeroot executed an interconnection agreement on
September 18, 2020, and three days later, on September 21, 2020, entered into
a net energy billing agreement with CMP. Snakeroot obtained other required
permits in April 2021 from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
and in July 2021 from the Town of Pittsfield. 11
[¶13] As proposed, Snakeroot’s project required ISO New England
approval of a transmission study that would be administered by CMP. Prior to
Snakeroot’s application, CMP already had begun utilizing cluster studies rather
than individual transmission studies when multiple projects were seeking
interconnection in a defined area. CMP published a transmission study
schedule for the Belfast-Detroit-Guilford area, which included Pittsfield, that
would eventually become known as “Cluster 06.” Multiple projects were
seeking to interconnect in this area; the number fluctuated over the course of
the study, but at one point approximately twenty-five projects in Cluster 06
were proposing to interconnect.
[¶14] On August 4, 2020, CMP held a webinar for solar developers that
highlighted certain study areas, including the Belfast-Detroit-Guilford area,
Cluster 06. CMP provided an overview of the study process and an estimated
“study timeline,” explaining its responsibility for ensuring reliability of the
electricity system, and ISO New England’s role in approving the study.
[¶15] In early 2021, CMP set a closure date of February 1, 2021, for
Cluster 06, and estimated March 2022 as the date for Section I.3.9 approval.
The Cluster 06 study commenced June 9, 2021; it received Section I.3.9
approval just over two years later, on August 31, 2023. 12
[¶16] A number of factors extended the time required to complete the
Cluster 06 study beyond CMP’s initial estimate of March 2022. There were
“complex mitigation issues,” issues with the computer models (known as
Power System Computer Aided Design, or PSCAD, models) used to study the
impact of integrating new generation capacity into the power grid under
certain conditions, and issues with the results of stability studies. Problems
with the computer models were identified in March 2022 and continued
through summer 2022, with additional issues arising after CMP submitted a
draft of the impact study to ISO New England in September 2022. The Cluster
06 timeline was affected by “freefalling,” see supra n.12. The withdrawal of a
FERC-level generator, which impacted the study’s baseline assumptions,
delayed receipt of models from two other FERC-level generators necessary for
revising the Cluster 06 study. CMP was not able to restart the study until March
2023, upon receiving this information. Then two projects withdrew from
Cluster 06 and another project downsized, requiring further revisions to the
Cluster 06 PSCAD analysis.
[¶17] CMP divided Cluster 06 into two areas, the “Belfast” area and the
“Guilford/Detroit” area, to allow the latter to move forward with analysis
through summer 2023. The “Guilford/Detroit” area of Cluster 06, which 13
included Snakeroot’s project, ultimately received Section I.3.9 approval on
August 31, 2023.15
[¶18] It was also only after Snakeroot’s project received Section I.3.9
approval in August 2023 that CMP could finalize upgrade designs, procure
equipment, and schedule the construction work to install the upgrades. At that
point, CMP estimated that it would take an additional twenty-four to thirty
months to complete the upgrades, although it acknowledged that equipment
procurement and construction could take more or less time. The construction
schedule accounted for an estimated seventy-two-to-eighty-week period to
obtain equipment necessary for the upgrades based on estimates from CMP’s
vendors at the time. CMP also needed to account for the time to engineer and
construct the interconnection upgrades.
[¶19] Snakeroot had paid twenty-five percent of its interconnection
upgrade costs to CMP but had not paid the remainder of the costs required for
distribution upgrades nor been invoiced for necessary transmission upgrades.
Construction of its generating facility in Pittsfield was only partially complete.
And, without accounting for CMP’s estimated time to make required system
15 Cluster 06 projects were then also affected by “leapfrogging,” see supra n.14, which would
necessitate that they be re-queued and re-studied at the distribution level. Following a re-study, interconnection agreements would need to be updated, and the projects would receive an invoice for the final amount due for upgrades. 14
upgrades, Snakeroot projected its facility would not achieve mechanical
completion until just a couple of months prior to the December 31, 2024,
deadline. When CMP’s estimate for procuring the equipment and completing
the upgrades was factored in, the predicted time to reach commercial operation
stretched well into 2025.
D. Snakeroot Solar’s Petition for Good-Cause Exemption
[¶20] On September 8, 2023, Snakeroot filed a petition for a good-cause
exemption pursuant to 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-A(7), seeking relief from the
December 31, 2024, deadline and requesting that the Commission set “an
alternative deadline for operation aligned with the schedule for CMP to
complete the upgrades” for its project.16 The petition asserted that the
exemption was justified because of delays resulting from the cluster study
process and from CMP’s estimated timeline for completing necessary grid
upgrades. The Office of the Public Advocate (“OPA”) filed a motion to intervene
pursuant to 35-A M.R.S. § 1702(2) (2025) and 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 110, § 8(B),
which was granted on October 4, 2023.
Snakeroot was one of six projects in Cluster 06 seeking a good-cause exemption under 35-A 16
M.R.S. § 3209-A(7), (9). The Commission denied all six petitions; only Snakeroot has appealed the Commission’s denial. 15
[¶21] A technical conference was held on October 19, 2023, to gather
information, facilitate discussion, and receive testimony. Representatives of
Snakeroot and CMP offered testimony at the October 19 conference and
provided supplemental information on November 3 as requested. On
December 13, 2023, the Commission issued a procedural order communicating
that the record was complete.
[¶22] Following submission of briefs by the parties and responses to
data requests, an examiners’ report was issued on April 22, 2024,
recommending that Snakeroot’s petition be denied. Snakeroot filed exceptions
to the examiners’ report. The OPA filed a letter in support of the report. On
June 24, 2024, the Commission issued an order denying all Cluster 06
petitioners’ requests for a good-cause exemption under 35-A M.R.S.
§ 3209-A(7), including Snakeroot’s.
[¶23] The Commission’s order made findings of fact specific to Snakeroot
and each of the other petitioners. The Commission found that the use of cluster
studies had become routine in Maine; CMP’s administration of the studies is
subject to ISO New England’s guidance and oversight; ISO New England’s
approval process does not have deadlines or anticipated timelines; and the time
it took for completion of the Cluster 06 study was slightly longer, but not 16
materially longer, than the average time that other cluster studies have taken.
The Commission further found that the events contributing to the delays
associated with the approval of the cluster study were inherently part of the
interconnection process and that CMP’s estimated timeframes for the upgrade
construction schedule were based on equipment procurement lead times that
were consistent with then-current industry standards.
[¶24] Based on its findings, the Commission concluded that the events
alleged by Snakeroot as the basis for its request for a good-cause exemption did
not constitute “external delays outside of [Snakeroot’s] control” within the
meaning of the statute, and that regardless of delays in the cluster study
process, Snakeroot had not demonstrated that it could have reasonably
expected to meet the December 31, 2024, commercial operation deadline given
the long lead times for equipment procurement. Accordingly, the Commission
denied Snakeroot’s petition.
[¶25] Snakeroot timely appealed. See 35-A M.R.S. § 1320(1)-(4) (2025);
M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1); M.R. App. P. 22. 17
II. DISCUSSION
A. Interpretation of the Good-Cause Exemption
[¶26] “When reviewing an agency’s interpretation of a statute that is
both administered by the agency and within the agency’s expertise, we apply a
two-part inquiry.” Cent. Me. Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 2014 ME 56, ¶ 18,
90 A.3d 451 (quotation marks omitted). First, we determine de novo whether
the statute is ambiguous, meaning whether it is “reasonably susceptible of
different interpretations.” Off. of the Pub. Advoc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 2023 ME
77, ¶ 9, 306 A.3d 633 (quotation marks omitted). Next, if the statute is
unambiguous, we construe its plain terms; if it is ambiguous, we determine
whether the agency’s construction is reasonable. Id.
[¶27] The good-cause exemption in 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-A(7) provides as
follows:
An entity proposing the development of a distributed generation resource that does not meet one or more of the requirements of this subsection may petition the commission for a good-cause exemption due to external delays outside of the entity’s control, which the commission may grant if it finds that, without the external delays, the entity could reasonably have been expected to meet the requirements.
(Emphasis added.) The phrase “requirements of this subsection” refers to the
development milestones in 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-A(7)(A)-(E). An entity seeking 18
an exemption from the milestones must therefore establish that there were
“external delays outside of [its] control” and but for the “external delays” it
could “reasonably have been expected to meet the requirements.” See id.
[¶28] Snakeroot contends that the “plain language” of the good-cause
exemption in section 3209-A(7) is unambiguous. It argues that the Commission
erred in construing the statute because the delays it experienced—specifically,
the protracted duration of the cluster study process and the lengthy period of
time estimated to complete grid upgrades—are precisely the kind of “external
delays” that the Legislature intended to encompass within the statute’s
good-cause exemption as a safe harbor for developers unable to meet the
statute’s development milestones. These events, Snakeroot maintains, were
outside of its control, prevented its project from reaching commercial
operation by December 31, 2024, and therefore fell within the scope of section
3209-A(7)’s exemption.
[¶29] The Commission also contends that the “plain meaning” of section
3209-A(7)’s language is clear, but it interprets the statute more narrowly. The
Commission construes “external delays” to mean events that are “external” to,
or outside of, the interconnection process—a process that is typically “long, 19
complicated, . . . and subject to frequent interruptions.” See Naples Roosevelt
Trail Solar 1, LLC, Petition for Good-Cause Exemption Pursuant to 35-A M.R.S.
§ 3209-A, No. 2021-215, Order at 13 (Me. P.U.C. Mar. 2, 2022) (acknowledging
in interpreting the good-cause exemption for the first time that “the
interconnection process is complicated and can easily become protracted and
difficult when issues arise”). Thus, the Commission does not consider a
transmission (or cluster) study conducted in accordance with prevailing
guidelines and practices to constitute a “delay” within the meaning of the
statute. Nor does it view the time required by the utility to make post-approval
grid upgrades to be a “delay” that is “external” to the interconnection process,
absent any extraordinary circumstances.
[¶30] In light of these conflicting interpretations, it is apparent that
section 3209-A(7)’s language is “reasonably susceptible of different
interpretations.” Off. of the Pub. Advoc., 2023 ME 77, ¶ 9, 306 A.3d 633
(quotation marks omitted). We therefore determine that the statute is
ambiguous; accordingly, we afford “great deference” to the Commission’s
interpretation and will uphold its interpretation “unless the statute plainly
compels a contrary result.” Cent. Me. Power Co., 2014 ME 56, ¶ 18, 90 A.3d 451
(quotation marks omitted); see also Off. of the Pub. Advoc., 2023 ME 77, ¶ 9, 306 20
A.3d 633 (reiterating that deference is afforded to the Commission’s
interpretation of the statutes it administers “in recognition of [its] greater
expertise in matters of relevant concern and greater experience administering
and interpreting those particular statutes” (alteration and quotation marks
omitted)).
[¶31] We conclude that the Commission’s interpretation is reasonable in
light of the overarching purpose of the 2021 Amendment to the 2019 NEB Act.
As referenced above, see supra ¶¶ 3-4, the impetus behind the Legislature’s
adoption of the statutory milestones in 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-A(7) was clear—to
set an overall target of 750 megawatts for development of distributed
generation resources participating in the NEB program and thus limit the
number of projects that become operational, principally out of concern about
the potential impact on electricity rates.17 See Legis. Rec. H-750-51 (1st Spec.
Sess. 2021); Legis. Rec. S-1051 (1st Spec. Sess. 2021). There was particular
concern about the impact that significant rate increases would have on the
In 2021, approximately 1500 megawatts of distributed generation resources were enrolled or 17
seeking enrollment in the NEB program. Legis. Rec. H-750 (1st Spec. Sess. 2021). According to a Commission estimate, if all 1500 megawatts of distributed generation became operational, rates could increase by thirty-one percent and cost ratepayers approximately $230.08 million per year. Id. At the time of its decision in this matter, the Commission found that the capacity of operational and pending NEB projects was already more than 1,100 megawatts. 21
elderly, individuals on fixed incomes, and other individuals who are especially
vulnerable to increased costs. Legis. Rec. H-750-51 (1st Spec. Sess. 2021).
[¶32] The Legislature fully appreciated that imposing mandatory
milestones could adversely affect some developers who, like Snakeroot, already
had invested in projects that were underway and could find it difficult to meet
all milestones. See Legis. Rec. S-1051-52 (1st Spec. Sess. 2021). Nonetheless,
this was a calculated risk that the Legislature weighed against the perceived
necessity to protect ratepayers from rapidly escalating electricity rates, as was
recognized by the chair of the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee that
reviewed the 2021 legislation imposing the milestones:
This was a very difficult issue we had to deal with. Let me explain what this bill does. We passed solar power last session. It actually was sponsored by the Republican Floor Leader in this Legislature and we got an overwhelming response for it and we began to get concerned about what impact it would have on rates. So we put together this subcommittee and we tried to, I never like to do this because investors have already invested in developing these solar projects, but we tried to determine a cut-off point at which it would only allow projects that had completed that cut-off point to go ahead under the old rate system. We did a cut-off point. It was a little bit higher than what I had wanted but that’s part of compromise.
Id.
[¶33] The Commission’s interpretation of the exemption is consistent
with, and effectuates, the Legislature’s intent to curtail eligibility for
participation in the NEB program, even for projects then underway. 22
[¶34] Further, contrary to Snakeroot’s contention, there is no
entitlement to an exemption under section 3209-A(7). The language of the
statute is discretionary; it provides that the Commission “may grant” an
exemption for good cause. 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-A(7); see Friedman v. Bd. of Env’t
Prot., 2008 ME 156, ¶¶ 14, 16, 956 A.2d 97 (noting that “the use of . . . the word
‘may’ indicates authorization or permission to act,” signaling that the decision
“lies in the agency’s sole discretion” (quotation marks omitted)).
[¶35] The Commission’s interpretation of section 3209-A(7) reflects that
“the interconnection process is complicated and can easily become protracted”
and correctly concludes that such impacts on timing “do[ ] not represent a
‘delay’” within the meaning of section 3209-A(7). See Naples Roosevelt Trail
Solar 1, LLC, Petition for Good-Cause Exemption Pursuant to 35-A M.R.S.
§ 3209-A, No. 2021-215, Order at 13 (Me. P.U.C. Mar. 2, 2022). The
interpretation urged by Snakeroot, on the other hand, potentially opens the
door wide to any project experiencing the vicissitudes of the normal
interconnection process. Given the clear legislative purpose animating the
2021 Amendment and the broad discretion vested in the Commission to
administer the process, we conclude that the Commission’s interpretation of
section 3209-A(7) is reasonable and consonant with the Legislature’s intent. 23
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence; Abuse of Discretion
[¶36] Snakeroot contends that even accepting the Commission’s
interpretation of section 3209-A(7), its findings are unsupported by the record
evidence. Specifically, Snakeroot maintains that the evidence does not support
the Commission’s findings that the Cluster 06 study was a routine part of a
typical interconnection process or that the time it took to gain Section I.3.9
approval was within, or “slightly slower” than, the average time for such
transmission studies. Moreover, Snakeroot contends that the Commission
abused its discretion by arbitrarily denying its petition while granting other
petitions based on similar facts.
[¶37] In reviewing an agency decision, “[t]he issue before us is not
whether we would have reached the same conclusion as the agency, but
whether the record contains competent and substantial evidence that supports
the result reached.” CWCO, Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins., 1997 ME 226, ¶ 6, 703
A.2d 1258 (quotation marks omitted); see Me. Coal. to Stop Smart Meters v. Me.
Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 2023 ME 8, ¶ 7, 288 A.3d 1195 (“We will sustain findings of
fact issued by the Commission unless they are not supported by substantial
evidence in the record.” (quotation marks and alteration omitted)). Our review
“does not involve any weighing of the merits of evidence; instead, we will vacate 24
an agency’s factual findings only if there is no competent evidence in the record
to support the findings . . . even if the record contains inconsistent evidence or
evidence contrary to the result reached by the agency.” Ouellette v. Saco River
Corridor Comm’n, 2022 ME 42, ¶ 20, 278 A.3d 1183 (citation and quotation
marks omitted).
[¶38] Snakeroot’s interconnection process undeniably took far longer
than initially anticipated. However, the record supports the Commission’s
findings that the prolonged Cluster 06 study process and the extended upgrade
construction schedule—the two principal reasons cited by Snakeroot as the
cause of its inability to meet the December 31, 2024, commercial operation
deadline—were inherent in, not external to, and well within the bounds of the
complicated regulatory process in this area. See supra ¶¶ 16-18, 23. There is
also competent record evidence to support the Commission’s finding that the
average length of cluster studies conducted by CMP in Maine is approximately
two years, and that Cluster 06 took two to three months longer than the
two-year average.18 Even if, as Snakeroot contends, the Commission’s
Although Snakeroot challenges the Commission’s methodology for computing the average 18
duration of a cluster study, we find both its approach and its conclusion to be reasonable and supported by the record. The Commission based its calculation on the length of time it took to complete all cluster studies in CMP’s territory to date, and determined:
The shortest amount of time it took CMP to complete a cluster study was 217 calendar days (or 0.59 years) [and] [t]he longest it took to complete a cluster study was 1025 25
calculations are erroneous and completion of the Cluster 06 study took up to
one year longer than the average transmission study, the estimated additional
time of twenty-four to thirty months to complete the construction of the grid
upgrades clearly foretold that Snakeroot’s project would be unable to reach
commercial operation until well beyond the statutory deadline of December 31,
2024.
[¶39] Moreover, the Commission found that the time utilities need to
make post-approval grid upgrades is also part of the interconnection process
and generally “do[es] not constitute an external delay but for which the projects
could have been expected to meet the commercial operation deadline.” In
Snakeroot’s case, the Commission found no evidence that the schedule
presented by CMP amounted to a “delay.” This finding is also supported by the
record. A CMP representative testified that the company’s estimate was based
largely on equipment procurement lead times provided to the company by its
vendors, and those lead times were not atypical or abnormal in the industry at
calendar days (or 2.81 years). The mean average time for CMP to complete a cluster study is just over two years, or 2.03 years.
Snakeroot, on the other hand, looked at a more limited sample, namely Clusters 01–05 and 16 that were being studied around the time of, and ahead of, Cluster 06 to determine an average study duration of 1.44 years (seventeen months). 26
that time. CMP also clarified that its timeline constituted a baseline estimate
and that the construction could take more or less time.
[¶40] Finally, we conclude that the Commission did not abuse its
discretion in denying Snakeroot’s petition for a good-cause exemption. Mindful
of our deferential standard of review, we have held that the “Commission’s
ruling will stand unless it is irrational; is unsupported by the record evidence;
or violates a statutory mandate, reading any ambiguity in statutory language as
the Commission reasonably resolves.” Indust. Energy Consumer Grp. v. Me. Pub.
Utils. Comm’n, 2024 ME 60, ¶ 33, 320 A.3d 437.
[¶41] We have already determined that the Commission’s order does not
violate its statutory mandate and is supported by the record evidence.
Snakeroot’s contention that the Commission acted arbitrarily is also without
merit. In support of this contention, Snakeroot cites an exemption granted to
another solar developer where the Commission found that the utility’s delayed
equipment procurement constituted an “external delay” within the meaning of
section 3209-A(7). See Pembroke Solar LLC, Petition for Good-Cause Exemption
Pursuant to 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-A, No. 2023-304, Order (Me. P.U.C. June 20,
2024). Snakeroot argues that this demonstrates the “lack of any clear definition 27
of what does or does not constitute an external delay” and therefore makes the
Commission’s denial here “arbitrary and capricious.”
[¶42] On the contrary, Pembroke’s circumstances at the time it
petitioned for a good-cause exemption were markedly different than
Snakeroot’s. Pembroke experienced an eleventh-hour, unanticipated change in
the utility’s equipment procurement schedule that occurred after (i) the cluster
study had been finally approved in September 2022, (ii) the developer had been
invoiced for, and paid, the full amount due for its interconnection and grid
upgrades, (iii) construction of its generating facility was well underway, and
(iv) all equipment necessary for the upgrades had been ordered. Id. at 4-6. The
estimated thirty-four-week lead time for procuring equipment put Pembroke
on track to reach commercial operation by April 24, 2024, well before the
statutory deadline. Id at 5. However, when the lead time for equipment
unexpectedly increased from thirty-four to eighty-one weeks, the estimated
commercial operation date was pushed beyond December 31, 2024. Id.
[¶43] Snakeroot’s project, by contrast, was in a very different posture
when its exemption petition was submitted in September 2023. The Cluster 06
study had just been approved as of August 31, 2023. There remained fewer
than sixteen months for the project to reach commercial operation before the 28
December 31, 2024, statutory deadline. There was still a likelihood that a
revised study would be needed due to leapfrogging. Snakeroot’s Pittsfield
facility had not been constructed. CMP had not invoiced Snakeroot for the costs
of upgrades. And CMP’s estimated twenty-four-to-thirty-month timeline for
procuring equipment necessary to make the upgrades reflected current
industry lead times. Combined, these factors put the project considerably
beyond the mandatory statutory deadline to “reach commercial operation.”
The entry is:
The Commission’s order denying the petition for a good-cause exemption is affirmed.
Jonathan M. Dunitz, Esq. (orally), and Hans C. Eysenbach, Esq., Verrill Dana, LLP, Portland, for appellant Snakeroot Solar, LLC
Daya J. Taylor, Esq. (orally), and Elizabeth J. Wyman, Esq., Maine Public Utilities Commission, Augusta, for appellee Maine Public Utilities Commission
William S. Harwood, Esq., Richard P. Hevey, Esq., and Brian T. Marshall, Esq. (orally), Office of the Public Advocate, Augusta, for appellee Office of the Public Advocate
Anthony W. Buxton, Esq., R. Benjamin Borowski, Esq., and Joseph G. Donahue, Esq., Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Augusta, for amicus curiae Industrial Energy Consumer Group
Public Utilities Commission docket number 2023-00236 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY