The Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel acted unfairly when they asserted in an editorial on March 22 (“Energy-efficiency projects run into LePage hard ball”) that in setting the cap for the ratepayer assessment used to fund energy efficiency programs, Public Utilities Commissioners Mark Vannoy and Carlisle McLean were acting to further the agenda of Gov. Paul LePage, who appointed them to the commission.

The charge is a serious one. PUC commissioners have a duty to faithfully interpret the laws they administer, and to suggest that they knowingly misinterpreted a law for political reasons is to imply that they violated that duty.

The matter involves the recently enacted law setting the cap on the assessment used to fund energy efficiency programs at “4 percent of total retail electricity transmission and distribution sales in the State.” Vannoy and McLean interpreted the law to mean that the assessment applies only to the delivery portion, and not the “energy” portion, of the electricity bill; Commissioner David Littell dissented, arguing that it includes both.

It is not my purpose to say who is right, but rather to assert that there are strong enough legal arguments on the side of the majority that it was irresponsible to conclude, in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, that their decision was based on anything but a good faith reading of the law.

The first rule of statutory construction is that a law clear on its face must be interpreted to mean what it says, unless that would produce an absurd result. Stated differently, it is inappropriate to consider legislative history to interpret an unambiguous statute.

The proponents of the higher cap argue that the word “and” had been inadvertently omitted during the legislative process and that the intent was to have the assessment apply to “total retail electricity and transmission and distribution sales in the State.” Even if that is the case, it is irrelevant if the law as enacted is clear on its face.

Advertisement

This may sound like a trivial technicality, but while the alleged omission may have been minor, the underlying principle is actually quite significant. Free societies require adherence to the rule of law, meaning that those in power are subservient to the law and not free to interpret it to suit their needs, even when they are acting to achieve admirable ends.

Requiring that laws be interpreted to mean what they say helps to safeguard the rule of law. To allow more than very narrowly prescribed latitude to deviate from the plain meaning of a statute would not only deprive citizens subject to a law of predictability but also invite potentially serious abuses.

Finding the rate cap statute to be clear on its face, the majority had to interpret it as written. Even those believing that they erred in finding the law unambiguous have to concede that it is a close enough call so as not to raise questions about the majority’s motives.

There is enough cynicism about public institutions without the newspaper fanning the flames. Disagreeing with the commission’s decision was responsible journalism. Imputing improper motives was not.

Steve Diamond is a former PUC commissioner and later served as the unpaid chairman of an entity established to fund energy efficiency programs with revenue from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

filed under: