Did Maine's optional telephone-rate bill compete with the 1986 voter initiative to preserve flat-rate service?

Plain-English summary

In 1986, Maine Attorney General James Tierney was asked whether a legislative bill permitting optional measured local telephone service had to be treated as a competing measure to a voter-initiated bill protecting flat-rate service. He concluded that L.D. 1957 and L.D. 1831 were not competing measures under Article IV, Part 3, Section 18 of the Maine Constitution. In his reading, a competing legislative measure had to be inconsistent with the initiated bill; addressing the same subject alone did not make the two bills compete.

L.D. 1831 would prohibit mandatory measured service and require flat rates at as low a cost as possible. L.D. 1957 would authorize the Public Utilities Commission to approve measured service only as an option and would keep a flat-rate option available for residential and business customers. The Attorney General said L.D. 1957 placed no restriction on how low that flat rate could be set. Thus, he reasoned, the Commission could comply with both bills, including the initiative's proposed test concerning the share of residential customers choosing flat-rate service.

The conclusion addressed how the two proposals would be classified for a referendum. It did not decide what rates the Commission should set. The opinion said that if the Legislature enacted L.D. 1957 and voters approved L.D. 1831, both could operate together.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Would both telephone bills have gone to voters as competing measures?
A: The Attorney General said no. Because he found the bills capable of operating together, he concluded they were not competing measures for the constitutional referendum rule he analyzed.

Q: Did the legislative bill allow mandatory measured telephone service?
A: In the Attorney General's reading, L.D. 1957 authorized the Commission to approve measured service on an optional basis. It did not authorize the Commission to require it.

Q: Would customers still have had a flat-rate option under L.D. 1957?
A: The opinion said the bill required a flat-rate option for residential and business customers wherever optional measured service was authorized.

Q: Why did the proposed flat-rate cost rule not make the bills conflict?
A: L.D. 1831 proposed a low-cost requirement and a presumption tied to how many residential customers chose flat-rate service. The opinion said L.D. 1957 required availability of a flat-rate option but did not set its price, leaving room to apply the initiative's requirements too.

Background and statutory framework

Representative Harry Vose asked whether enacting L.D. 1957 would make it a competing measure to the already presented L.D. 1831. The Attorney General cited a Maine Supreme Judicial Court description of competing measures as addressing the same general subject, particularly when inconsistent. He also acknowledged a later justice's broader view, then adopted the Department's existing interpretation that inconsistency was necessary under Article IV, Part 3, Section 18. The letter compared the proposals clause by clause: mandatory versus optional measured service, availability of flat rates, and the initiated bill's proposed low-cost standard.

The PDF also contains the two proposed bills and an earlier Attorney General opinion as attachments. The 1986 letter's conclusion concerns the telephone bills, while the earlier attached opinion addressed a different initiative.

Citations and references

• Article IV, Part 3, Section 18 of the Maine Constitution: the competing-measure provision discussed in the letter.
• L.D. 1957: the legislative optional measured-service proposal.
• L.D. 1831: the initiated flat-rate service proposal.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
• Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/1986/ag_19860205.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

l
1/)\

86-5
JAMES E. TIERNEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE or MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE HOtSE STATION 6
AUGUST A, MAINE 04333

February 5, 1986

Honorable Harry L. Vose
House Chairman, Joint Standing
Committee on Utilities
Maine Legislature
State House Station #2
Augusta, Maine· 04333
Dear Representative Vose:
You have asked whether Legislative Document No. 1957, "AN ACT Concerning Local Telephone Service Rate Structure," would, if enacted, constitute a "competing measure" within the meaning of Article IV, Part 3, Section 18 of the Maine Constitution, to 1~ an initiated bill, Legislative Document No. 1831, "AN ACT to Prohibit Mandatory Local Measured Service and to Preserve Affordable Traditional Flat Rate Local Telephone Service at as Low a Cost as Possible," which has recently been presented to the Second Regular Session of the 112th Maine Legislature.
Copies of both bills are attached. If L.D. 1957 is a "competing measure,• and if the Legislat~re fails to enact the L.D. 1831, both are required by the Constitution to be submitted together to the voters at a referendum. However, for the reasons which follow, it is the Opinion of this Department that L.D. 1957 and L.D. 1831 are not "competing measures." The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has described a "competing measure," within the meaning of the constitutional provision, as one "which deals broadly with the same general subject matter [as the initiated measure], particularly if it deals with it in a manner inconsistent with the initiated measure so that the two cannot stand together • • . " Farris ex rel.
Dorsky v. Goss, 143 Me. 227, 232 (1948). It is true that at least one Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court in a subsequent case indicated that if the legislative action in question simply addresses the same subject matter as the initiated bill, the two may be competing in the constitutional sense, even if -2-

(        '                               ·.,they are not inconsistent. McGaffrey v. Gartley, 377 A.2d

1367, 1372-74 {Me. 1977) {Wernick, J., concurring). This Department, however, has for some time been of the view that the clear language of Article IV, Part 3, Section 18 of the Maine Constitution precludes this construction and requires that the legislative action must be inconsistent in order to be "competing" with the initiated bill. Op.Me.Att'y Gen. 84-19 at 3-5, a copy·of which is attached.

The question, therefore, is whether there is anything in L.D. 1957 which is inconsistent with the provisions of the initiated bill. Both bills propose to enact a new section {35 M.R.S.A. § 80) into the Maine code. The initiated measure contains three subsections. The first subsection provides simply that "Mandatory local measured telephone service is prohibited in the State.• L.D. 1957, in its proposed second subsection, authorizes the Public Utilities Commission to "approve an optional measured local service rate." {emphasis added.) Thus, L.D. 1957 does not allow the Commission to require measured service. It merely authorizes the Commission to establish it on an optional basis. The two bills, consequently, are not inconsistent in this respect.

The second proposed subsection of the initiated bill provides that the "Public Utilities Commission shall establish [flat] rates for telephone companies . . • at as low a cost as possible . . . " In subsection 3 of its proposed statute, L.D.
1957 requires that wherever the Commission authori~e.s optional local measured service, the rate structure in that area shall also include "a flat-rate option • . • to be available for residential and business customers." Thus, since a flat rate must be available to any customers for whom optional measured service is authorized by the Commission, L.D. 1957 is not inconsistent with the second subsection of the initiated bill.

It might be argued, however, that even though the Commission, pursuant to subsection 3 of L.D. 1957, preserves a flat rate in any area where it authorizes optional local measured service, it might establish such a rate at a level which is not "at as low a cost as possible," thus violating proposed subsection 2 of the initiated bill. This argument would not result in a finding of inconsistency between the two pieces of proposed legislation, since there is nothing in L.D.
1957 which prohibits the Commission from establishing the flat rate alternative at "as low a cost as possible." The initiated bill seeks to effect this mandate by providing, in its proposed subsection 3, that wherever the Commission authorizes optional local measured service, it shall be presumed that the flat rate alternative in that area is not "at as low a cost as possible" if the rate structure results in fewer than three-quarters of

'.J:'.}j~\J:'.--,:;?r:~'- .?·:::t,:,:~:J:,I::'·:~:;TT}bi:-'::::~,.~-::·,;:~-~~;;-':~·1:~:~~ .?:' ;:=~?? >-·•· -• -·--.
. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -... • •• ,-•• : -.• • • . • • -;::.:.... --:".,-':. • • ..• •• - · . ·-. . , .•- ! . · · • . · : : ~- ..

.. -
 -3-

,·,. · .. the residential cus'tomers in the area in question selecting the flat rate. The bill further pr6vides that this presumption may be overcome if the Commission finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that no reasonable alternative rate may be established which will raise the percentage of residential customers using the flat rate above 75 percent.
There is nothing in L.D. 1957 which is inconsistent with this provision. As indicated above, that bill requires only that a flat rate option be provided to all customers where optional local measured service is available, but says nothing about the level at which the flat rate option should be set.
Thus, if both measures were law, the Commission would exercise the authorization granted to it by L.D. 1957 in accordance with the provisions of the L.D. 1831 and will not be placed in the position of having to satisfy inconsistent requirements.
It is therefore apparent that if the Legislature were to enact L.D. 1957 and the electorate were to approve the initiated bill by referendum, the two measures could operate together, without violence to either. That being the case, they cannot be ~onsidered "competing" for purposes of Article IV, Part 3, Section 18 of the Maine Constitution. Indeed, since they are not competing, the Legislature may wish to avoid the conducting a referendum on the initiated measure by enacting it itself, as of course it is constitutionally permitted to do.
I hope the foregoing answers your question. Please feel r- free to reinquire if further clarification is necessary. erely, '

s E. ER-N-4---~~--......,
JET/ec cc: Sen. John E. Baldacci
Senate Chairman, Joint Standing
Committee on Utilities
Rep. Polly Reeves
Speaker John L. Martin
Rep. Jean T. Dellert
Rep~ Charlene B. Rydell
Co-Sponsors, Legislative Document No. 1831 ·, ·· J \~1r, I::. 'flrn-.-u
.• .
. ,
I
·+f•-· ... ":I.
•

~TTOR"IEY GENERA~
~-

STATE OF' MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE HOUSE STATION 6
AUGUSTA.·MAINE 04333

May 1, 1984

The Honorable Polly Reeves
Maine Ho~se of Representatives
State House
Augusta, Maine• 04333
Dear Representative Reeves:
(
By letter of April 2, 1984, you have requested the Opinion
of this Department concerning the effect of certain legislation to be proposed by citizen initiative upon the pow~r . of the Legislature to address the same subject matter by legislation between the time the initiative legislation is proposed and the time it is submitted to the voters. The proposed initiated legislation, a draft of which is attached to your inquiry, would make subject to popular referendum any recommendation to the Legislature (1) of the Board of Environmental Protection, made pursuant to 38 M.R.S.A. § 1478, that .a low-level radioactive waste disposal or storage facility be ·constructed in Maine, and (2) of the Governor, made pursuant to 38 M.R.S.A.
§ 1474, that the State enter into any compact or agreement with any other state or the federal government concerning the ( ..

• 2
  disposal or storage of low-level radioactive waste.l/
  (
  Your inquiry assumes the presentation of suitable petitions
  to initiate such legislation under the Maine Constitution, Article IV, Part 3, Section 18 to the First Regular Session of the 112th Legislature, and voter approval of the initiated· legislation at the general election to be held in November, 1985.

On the basis of these assumed facts, you inquire more specifically (1) whether the presentation to the li2th Legislature of an initiative requiring voter approval of low-level radioactive waste decisions would prevent that Legislature from approving either the establishment of a disposal facility in Maine, or entry into an interstate agreement on the subject, until after the voters have voted upon the initiated legislation; and (2) whether subsequent voter approval of the initiated legislation would apply to any such action of the Legislature taken during the First Regular Session of the.112th Legislature.
For the reasons which follow, it is the Opinion of this Department that the pendency of the initiated legislation would not prevent the First Regular Session of the 112th Legislature from approving a waste disposal facility in Maine, or approving an interstate agreement on the subject. With rega~g to your second question, the Department is able to conclude only that retrospective application of the initiated legislation co~ld be unconstitutional if vested rights had arisen subsequent to the effective date of the action of the 112th Legislature but prior to the approval of the initiated legislation by the voters.
Whether such rights will arise, however, is impossible to determine in advance.

l/ The proposed initiated legislation expressly provides that these issues be presented to the voters at the next • statewide election after a facility or compact is recommended.
Although unspecified, it appears that the intention is to require voter approval in addition to legislative approval, and independent thereof, since no amendment is made to the statutes requiring legislative approval. · If so, the proposal might be clarified, particularly to address the situation where the · recommendation is rejected when first put to a vote, either by the people or in the Legislature.
r_..
3 -

I. Effect of Pending Initiated Legislation.

( The presentation of petitions under Art. IV, pt. 3, § 18 of the Maine Constitution is merely an alternative means to initiate legislation. "The measure thus proposed, unless enacted without change by the Legislature at the session at which it is presented, shall be submitted to the electors . . . .
If the measure initiated is enacted by the Legislature without change, it shal 1 not go to a ref erendurn vote. . . " Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 18. The only effect of presentation of an initiative on the power of the Legislature to legislate is that legislation qualifying as an "amended form, [or] substitute" for the initiated legislation must be submitted to the voters together with the initiated legislation as a "competing measure," and cannot become law except by approval of the voters . . Id.; Farris ex rel. Dorsky v. Goss, 143 Me. 227, 60 A.2d 908 (1948),L 7

Thus, the more germane inquiry with respect to your first question is whether any action of the First Regular Session of the 112th Legis·lature, approving the establishment within the State of a low-level radioactive waste disposal or storage facility or approving an interstate compact, would constitute a "competing measure" to the initiated legislation, and thus not ( take effect unless approved by the voters.
In Farris, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court de~lared that, to determine whether a legislative action is a "competing measure" under the constitutional provision, the Court will not consider "how the Legislature may have regarded it . . . [but] only what it is in fact." The Court went on to describe a "competing measure" as a "bill which deals broadly with the same general subject matter [as the initiated measure], particularly if it deals with it in a manner inconsistent with the initiated measure so that the two cannot stand together . . . . " Farris, supra, at 232.
Applying this inconsi_stency test, it cannot be said that the initiated legislation attached to your inquiry would be inconsistent with a legislative enactment approving either a particular waste disposal or storage facility or a particular interstate compact dealing with that subject. There is no
i/ It should be noted that legislation qualifying as emergency legislation under Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 16 cannot constitute a "competing measure," by virtue of the provisions of that section and Section 17. Mccaffrey v.
Gartley, 377 A.2d 1367 (Me. 1977).
C
 ' ,,

( ,.

• 4 -
  necessary conflict between legislative approval of a given waste facility or interstate compact and a subsequent amendment to the procedures by which further facilities or compacts are to be approved. The first action deals with a specific proposal, while the latter addresses generally the procedure for considering future proposals without regard to the merits or wisdom of any given facility or compact. Since there is no incompatibility between the two, the Legislature's approval of a particular facility or compact would not be a "competing measure" to the initiated legislation.
  In reaching this conclusion, this Department was aware that the language in the Farris opinion quoted above to describe the test for a "competing measure" suggests the possibility that a legislative action that was not inconsistent with initiated legislation could still be considered a "competing measure." Such a construction was also considered possible by at least one Justice of the Law Court in a later case, 2 / who suggested that "it . . . appears manifest that the 'amended form, substitute or recommendation . . . ' mandate of [Art. IV, Pt. 3]_Section 18 . . . functions to save the electors effort and expense. It creates a shortcut device· which avoids the need that the electors take the additional step of inyoking the
  (
  [Art. IV, Pt. 3, § 17] referendum to subject to the vote of the
  electors an enactment of the Legislature affecting the subject-matter of an initiated bill. The 'amended __ f_orm, substitute or recommendation . . . 'mandate incorporates directly into the initiative an equivalent of the[§ 17 "peo_ple's veto"] referendum, thereby achieving the same ultimate options for the electors as would result, if with greater effort and expense, the electors were to supplement the [§ 18] initiative with a resort to the[§ 17] referendum." 377 A.2d 1373-4 {emphasis added).
  If this construction were adopted, the facts hypothesized in your inquiry mig:1t offer an example of a legislative measure which, while not inconsistent with the proposed initiative, might nonetheless be considered "competing." If, during the First Regular Session of the 112th Legislature, the Legislature receives a recommendation of the Board of Environmental Protection under 38 M.R.S.A. § 1478 or of the Governor under § 1474, and approves a bill accepting that recommendation, that action of the Legislature would normally become effective 90 days after the Legislature's adjournment. Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 16, Thus, the very actions sought to be made subject to voter approval through the initiated measure would become

2 / Justice Wernick, concurring in Mccaffrey v. Gartley, 377
(
A.2d 1367, 1372 (Me. 1977).

(--
, : - 5 -
legally effective prior to consideration by the voters of the initiated legislation. Such actions, while not strictly inconsistent with the initiated legislation as indicated above, clearly wou~d deal with the same subject matter and therefore might be deemed to be "competing."
This Department concludes, however, that the clear language of Section 18 precludes the possible construction of the Constitution suggested by the Farris opinion and Justice Wernick. A requirement that legislative action must be inconsistent with the initiated legislation in order to be a "competing measure" would seem to follow directly from the language of Section 18. That section requires that "any amended form, substitute, or recommendation of the Legislature" be presented to the voters together with the initiated measure "in such manner that the people can choose between the competing measures or reject both." The referendum ballot must thus be structured to allow the voters to approve one or the other of the competing measures, or to reject both, but not to allow approval of both measures. Legislative approval of a recommended facility or compact would not establish the situation where the voters could logically only choose either to ratify the approval or amend the approval process, or reject both. Since it would not be illogical for both a particular facility or compact and the suggested procedural change to be approved, the two questions therefore cannot be pr~s._ented to the voters as "competing measures," which, in the sense contemplated by the Constitution, must clearly be alternatives to one another.
II. Effect of the Approval of the Initiated Legislation on Prior Legislative Acts.
The foregoing analysis also provides the answer to your second inquiry. Since it has been concluded that legislative approval of a compact or waste facility would not be a "competing measure" to the initiated legislation, it would therefore take legal effect if the normal ninety day waiting period~/ were to expire prior to voter approval of legislation amending the approval process. Such a legislative act would ordinarily not be subject to the later-enacted procedural amendment, unless the initiated legislation were

~/ By virtue of Me. Const. art. IV, pt. 3, S 16, non-emergency legislation takes effect 90 days after the adjournment of the session of the Legislature in which it was passed, unless, of course, the legislation itself provides for a later effective date.
 - 6
given retrospective application. The draft legislation attached to your opinion request contains a provision clearly intended to make it apply to previously approved compacts or agreements. Proposed 35 M.R.S.A. § 3397. It contains no such provision with respect to previously approved waste storage or disposal facilities. The question thus becomes whether retrospective application of the initiated legislation to prior legislative approval of a compact or agreement would be constitutional.
Laws enacted through the initiative process are subject to the same constitutional restrictions on retrospective laws as are those adopted by the Legislature. Generally a statute may be constitutionally applied retrospectively unless its effect is to impair vested rights. Proprietors of the Kennebec Purchase v. Laboree, 2 Me. (2 Greenl.) 275, 295 (1823). The proposed initiated legislation could not constitutionally be applied to a recommendation previously approved by the Legislature if to do so would impair or divest others of rights upon which they had justifiably relied. In this case, were the Legislature to approve entry into an interstate compact or agreem~nt, it is apparent that rights could vest in third parties upon the effective date of the legislative action and before the submission of the initiative to the voters.
'( However, until such legislative action actually occurs it is not possible to reach any conclusion as· to whethe~ _ such vested rights will in fact arise. Thus, the most this Department can say now is that it is possible that the retrospective application of the initiated legislation would be unconstitutional.
Consequently, it would appear that the only certain constitutional means for the voters at large to obtain a popular referendum to approve or disapprove an action by the Legislature at the First Regular Session of the 112th Legislature approving a waste facility or entering into an interstate compact would be by the referendum procedure set forth in Article IV, Pt. 3, § 17 of the Maine Constitution,.!." Such a "people's veto" referendum would be separate and distinct from the initiated legislation attached to your inquiry .

.!." In approving a waste facility or interstate compact, the Legislature could, of course, make that action subject to referendum unconditionally, by so providing in the bill, Me.
Const. art. IV, pt. 3, § 19, or conditionally, if the initiated legislation is approved, by delaying the effective date of their approval of the compact beyond the date of the next (_ statewide election.
 - 7 -

If this Office may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. cerely,
-
C L
E. TIERNEY ttorney General
JET:sl

(

(

(
 / f

l
SECOND REGU~AR SESSION
2

    (                3                    ONE HUND;;.ED h>lD 'I\/E~FI:-l LSC-I s:.,;.._Ti.JRE

4

5 Legislative Document
No. 1831
6

7 H.P. 1315
House of Representatives, January 13, 198(>
8 Approved for introduction by a majority of the Legislative Council pursuant to Joint Rule 26.
9 Reference to the Committee on Utilities suggested and ordered printed.
10
EDWIN H. PERT, Clerk
Presented by Representative Reeves of Pittston.
Cosponsored by Speaker Martin of Eagle Lake, Representative Dellert of Gardiner and Representative Rydell of Brunswick.
11

12
STATE OE' MAINE
13

14
IN THE YE.::.3 OF OUR LO:s.D
15
NINETEEN HJNDRED AND EIGHTY-SIX
( 16
17 AN ACT to Prohibit Mandatory Local Measured 18 Service and to Preserve TraditiQnal E'lat-rate 19 Telephone Service at as Low a Cost as Possible.
20

21 Be it enacted by the People of the State of -Haine as 22 follows:

23 35 MRSA §74-A is enacted to read:

                    24   §74:-A.      Mandatory local                meas,:red        tele-ohone ser•:ice

25
prohibited

26 1. MandatoI..:L_~:.e:.~,ired s,e~·\·ice. _ i•ia:·.dato!::y~e.si- 27 dential local meas~red telephone service is prc~ib~.
28 ited in the S~ate.

29 2. Low-cost tr.adi tional telepho:1e service. The 30 Public Utilities Commission shall establish rates for 31 telephone companies which will preserve traditional 32 local telephone service as o:·ovided -orior to January 33 l, 1936, as the standard service for residential cus- 34 tomers, at as low a cost as possible.

·:,:·.•.
··•.

·· ...... .

. (
. ,•'··

·- .. ·.· ......•.·•· .. .
·
 /
I
I

1 3. s.t21::da1·d. In dete::mini;:(I ·.::1etl:er a telep:,cne 2 rRte_ presen•es the stct1:da1·d n:~s:de::ti?.l service at <is
(
3 lo,: a cost as :r;ossible, it_shRll_t-e_2:·e:~:"·ed t:1at_t,:1y
I
4 rate ,,·Li ch 1·es\1l ts in less th.:::1 3 1 .;. cf tl:e re,;i•::•:::1-
5
.---- -- ----- .·-· - .-·-.---- ----·--·.-. . ·----------.-·- ti <il cu: to;;,c-rs ~v,c. 1 : t ~ the U:aa1 tc. :;)!,al sta1:c.:?.~-d 6 servic.e in p1·efserence to meRs~·:·ed 01· othen-.'ise_L.1~·.- 7 it-=d calli,:.:1.....0·.)ticns i: in \:iola•~ir_,:, uf ;;\:bst:ctio:, 2.
(.
8 The coir,::j s;~ ion ':-:·1~·0:r-:,1·c·.:e a 1·.;. ~c _ st:·uc ~ure ;.;::1 ch
9 9~es __D9.!. ..!':..~~ult i_r~-~ 15 of ~l~E:_rc !::'iC:en: :i a 1 custc:'.;e~ 10 maintaining traditional locnl service, --~nly if the 11 cor:;mission fi1~ds by cle?:.~-~~-c'."l1,vi:1ci_:?.9. evide:1ce 12 that no alternative ~ate struct~re could be i~=le- 13 mented v;hich \ \ i l ~ i n t a i n 3/4 of t::e reside::tTaI 14 custcr.iers on traditional local si;;:c•:ice.

15
STATE~ENT OF FACT

16 This bill prohibits mandatory local measured tel- 17 ephone service, preserves traditional local tele:;:::r.or.e 18 service at as low a cost as possible and limits the 19 percent of customers who will be provided optional 20 local meastrred service.

21
4781123185
(

(

Page 2-L.D. 1831

C
· ...·

: ·••:• ..... ,o,I: ..
. :.- .. :· ·-.-.-·. -· .... :-... =--~;~-.•~-. .::.•··----:---__:-r;,:~1:..:_.·:-.-·..f;- ·: ...
. ·.··.•.····
 I ,

(
( l
2
SECOND REGULAR SESSION

    )             3               ONE HUNDRED AND TWELFTH LEGISLATURE

4

( 5 Legislative Document
No. 1957
6

7 H.P. 1388
House of Representatives, January 3 I, 1986
8
Reported by Repre~entative Vose from the Commi11ee on Utilities. Sent 9 up for concurrence and ordered printed. Approved by the Legislative Council on May 22, 1985.
Reported from the Joint Standing Commit1ee on Utilities under Joint i' 10
Rule 19.
EDWIN H. PERT, Clerk

11

12
STATE OF MAINE
13

14
IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD
15
NINETEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SIX
( 16
17
AN ACT Concerning Local Telephone Service
18
Rate Structure.
19

20 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as
(
21 follows:

                 22          Sec. l.       35 MRSA §80 is enacted to read:

23 §80. Local telephone service rates 24 1. Policy. It is the policy of the State that 25 the rates for local telephone service to both busi- 26 ness and residential customers shall be just and rea- 27 sonable and take into account people's ability to 28 ~

C 29
30
2. Local optional measured service. The commis- sion may approve an optional measured local service 31 rate where it finds that such a rate is not incon- 32 sistent with other provisions of law, that it is fair 33 and equitable, that it is consistent with the univer- (

.,,•.•···
.... ·._.
' .·: .. .-
.• ... -:·
 l sal service policy of section 74 and that the net ec- (
2
onomic benefits to the telephone system will exceed
3
the net economic cost of i~olernent1ng that usage
( 4 charge.

5
This subsection is repealed on ~ay l, 1988.

6
3. Rate structure. In any service area whe·re
(
7
local measured service is offered as an alternative
8
to traditional flat-rate pricing, the rate structure
9
for local telephone service shall include:

10
A. A fixed monthly charge, as determined by the
11
commission, to make an approoriate contribution
12
to the fixed costs of the telephcne system. This
13
contribution shall be set in a way that recog-
14
nizes the cost sav:ngs resulting from joint use
15
of common telecommunications facilities by local,
16
toll and 6ther services and that equitably shares
17
the benefits of those cost savings among all ser-
18
vices;

19
B. Except as provided in paragraphs C and D for
20 residen6al and business customers, maximum
21 monthly charges for calling to a customer's
22
23 present local calling area, not to exceed 35% above the amounts the monthly charges would be if (
24
calculated on a flat-rate basis to supoly the
25
revenue requirement of the telephone company .as
26
determined by the commission;

27
C. For residential customers, any measured ser-
28
vice rate structure shall include an option with
29
no usage charge during off-peak periods as deter-
30
mined by the commission, when add1tional calls do
31
not result in significant additicnal costs to the
32
telephone system. The maximum monthly charge for
33
this option may be $1 hiaher than the maximum
34
permitted under paragraoh B;

35
D. If ordered by the commission, the maximum
36
monthly charge imposed by paragraoh B may be ex-
37
ceeded for customers who use the local telephone
38
network to complete interexchange calls, that is,
39
calls beyond the local calling area for flat-rate
40
41 customers, to provide shared tenant service or to provide coin service;
( ..

Page 2-L.D. 1957
(_

C

• ·.• _,,. . .-.. . --:,:-:-::----·... ,.,- - -~ ·- .- . .
  -;:~---
  ~ ·•·.
  . . .

.
. . . -·--··
r·"~- ·: . "-·-·. ~~·... ,-··
··..·• ·. ·.-..:: .-. ~ -- .·:
•.•":°.,I• ....... ~ : •• •--~•,;._•:••,-• • l • • •• . ·. ·-·-·:'. - ·--:"': ···--··· .--~- ......
 ( 1
2
E. Except as provided in paragraoh D, a flat-rate option shall continue to be available 3 for residential and bus:ness customers; and (
4 F. Any local measured service rate structure es- ( 5
6 tablished in accordance with this section shall be revenue neutral when compared with the tradi- 7 tional flat-rate structure, as calculated by the 8 commission.

9 This subsection is reoealed on May 1, 1988.

10 4. Rate structure; local measured service pro- ll hibited. Unless authorized by statute, no utility

1 12
13
14 may offer local measured service on either an ootion- al or mandatory basis later than 90 days after ad- journment of the Second Re=ular Session of the 113th 15 Legislature. Unless contin~ation is authorized by 16 law, any local measured service rate structure previ- 17 ously approved by the cor:unission shall exoire 90 days 18 after adjournment of the Second Regular Session- of 19 the 113th Legislature and be reolaced by a flat-rate 20 structure.

21 "Sec. 2. Effecti~e date. The Maine Revised Stat- ( · 22
23 utes, Title 35, section 80, subsection 4, shall take effect on May l, 1988.

24 Sec. 3. Report. The Public Utilities Commission 25 shall report to the Legislature on July 1, 1987, on 26 the impact of any local measured service rate struc- 27 ture in effect prior to that date. The report.. --shall 28 address the effect of local measured service on the 29 various categories of users; residential, large and ( 30 small businesses, with attention to special groups 31 such as low-income, elderly, shut-in, deaf, 32 speech-impaired and blind persons, as well as 33 volunteers and volunteer organizations. The report 34 shall address the effects of measured service on ru- 35 ral, suburban and urban cus~omers, and its effects on 36 local, county and state governmental agencies. The 37 report shall evaluate the traffic sensitive and 38 nontraffic sensitive costs of supplying local ser- 39 vice. The report shall also analyze and co~pare the ( 40
41 economic savings and the costs to the telephone sys- tem related to implementation of local measured ser- 42 vice. The report shall include any other information

Page 3-L.D. J95i
(

··· .. ..·.•···
....
. .. -
 '' .
1 the cor..rr.ission believes will be useful in assisting (
2
the Legislature in determining whetter or not to au-
3
thorize continuation of local measured service.
(-
4
Sec. 4. Users informal vote. Any te~e~hone com-
5 pany offering local measured service as of July 1, (
6
1987, shall poll its customers to determine whether
7
they believe the local measured service program
8
should continue. The poll shall be included as an
9
insert in telephone bills issued in ~ovember 1987, in
10
only those service areas where local measured service
11
has been in effect at least since July l, 1987. The
12
form of the bill insert and the questions asked shall
13
be approved by the Public Utilities Commission, after
14 receiving public comment. The results of the poll
15
shall be submitted to the Second Regu!ar Session of
16
the 113th Leg~slature and to the com~ission on or be-
17
fore January 6, 1988.

18
Sec. S. Noncompeting measure. It is the intent
19
of the Legislature that this Act not be interpreted
20
as a competing measure, within the meaning of the
21
Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third, Sec-
22
tion 18, with "AN ACT to Prohibit Mandatory Local
23 Measured Service and to Preserve Affordable Tradi- (
24
tional Flat-rate Local Telephone Service at as Low a
25
Cost as Possible," an initiated bill which will be
26
submitted to the voters in November, 1986. It is the
27
further intent of the Legislature that this measure
28
not be subject to referendum as a competing measure
29
with that bill.

(

(
Page 4-L.D. 1957
(

.C

.. ..·.·•·
·. ..:··.-:.: ,:·

· ..... .
,.,·,-·- ....
 \, .
( 1 STATE~ENT OF FACT

2 This bill is report X of the study of local tele- 3 phone service cor.ducted by the Joint Standing Commit- ( 4
5 tee on Utilities. The bill permits a 2-year trial of optional local measured service pricing of telephone 6 service for business and residential custor:-.ers, pro- 7 vided that the Public Utilities Commission finds that 8 it is not inconsistent with other provisions of law 9 ,and that it is fair and equitable and helps maintain 10 universal service. Additional requirements for resi- 11 dential customers include a mandatory cap and manda- 12 tory availability of calling with no time-based usage 13 charge during off-peak hours.

14 A sunset provision is included: Local measured

'
service is prohibited 90 days after adjournment of
15
16 the Second Regular Session of the ~13th Legislature 17 in 1988, unless authorized by a future legislative 18 Act. A Public Utilities Commission study is required 19 with a report on July 1, 1987, to assist the Legisla- 20 ture in making that determination.

21 An informal vote of telephone users will be taken ( 22
23 in November 1987, in the areas where local measured service is available. The results of that vote will 24 be made available by January 6, 1988, to the 113th 25 Legislature in order to inform the members in their 26 decision whether or not to authorize continuation of 27 the program.

28 It is the intent of the Legislature that this 29 bill not be a competing measure with the proposed 30 referendum: "AN ACT to Prohibit Mandatory Local Mea- 31 sured Service and to Preserve Affordable Traditional
!
32 Flat-rate Local Telephone Service at as Low a Cost as
( 33 Possible."

34
5748012986

.(

(
Page 5-L.D. 1957

-

• :· .............
  ' ..·.
  . ---

                     ---• ...... ·•···