Leslie R. Harold E. SCOTT et al. These cases involve several petitions brought by persons residing within the franchised service areas of defendant public utility companies and seeking orders by the Public Utilities Commission requiring these companies to provide them with electrical service.
In each instance the petitioners were members and customers of Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, Inc. Eastern was permitted to intervene in opposition to the granting of these petitions.
In Heath, et al. Maine Public Service Co. A short time after this decision was rendered and presumably as a result thereof, the legislature enacted certain amendments P. These amendments became effective September 3, while these petitions were pending but before decision thereon by the Commission. The Commission subsequently dismissed the petitions, basing its action on the change in the law wrought by these legislative amendments. The Commission as a quasi judicial tribunal very properly assumed the constitutionality of the new legislation.
We are satisfied that petitions before the Commission pending but not decided on September 3, were thereafter governed by the statutes as then validly amended. County Commissioners, 63 Me. Like results were reached in Railway v. County Commissioners, 88 Me. Fogler, 71 Me. In the instant case the rights of petitioners had not jelled. Even under Heath and the statutes in force prior to September 3, it was necessary for the Commission to determine the economic feasibility thereof before ordering a public utility to furnish requested service.
The Commission committed no legal error in so holding. We turn then to the constitutional issue. Before the amendments an electric cooperative was recognized as being something other than a public utility.
