ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON FEBRUARY 20, 2015 THIS IS A VIRTUAL DUPLICATE OF THE ORIGINAL HARDCOPY SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS ELECTRONIC FILING INSTRUCTIONS STATE OF MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION February 20, 2015 FRYEBURG WATER COMPANY, Investigation Into Lease Agreement And Contract For Bulk Water Sales Between Fryeburg Water Company and Nestlé Waters Of North America Docket No. 2012-00487 NOTICE OF APPEAL Intervenors/Appellants Dr. Bruce Taylor and Food and Water Watch (collectively “FWW”) file this Appeal from an Order of the Maine Public Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) dated November 21, 2014, a copy of which is attached to this Notice. The nature of the proceeding was the Commission’s review of Fryeburg Water Company’s (“FWC”) request for approval of a long-term contract with Nestle Waters of North America (“NWNA”) under which FWC will lease to NWNA certain real estate and FWC’s well, and FWC will sell aquifer water to NWNA with NWNA’s right to withdraw water directly from the aquifer and ship the water outside FWC’s service territory (the “Contract”). This appeal follows the Commission’s denial of motions for reconsideration that became effective by the passage of time on February 3, 2015. 1 Pursuant to M.R.App.P. 5(b)(2)(A), the issues on this appeal are as follows: 1. Whether the Commission erred in concluding the Contract does not exceed FWC’s Charter authority. The issues within this point of error include but are not limited to: 2. a. Whether, under the Contract, NWNA is a public service customer within the intended scope of FWC’s Charter. b. Whether the Commission misconstrued the term “pure water” in FWC’s Charter. Whether the Commission erred in concluding the Contract does not violate the statutory prohibition against discrimination (35-A M.R.S. §§309, 702 &703). The issues within this point of error include but are not limited to: a. Whether the Commission construed the statutory prohibition too narrowly. b. Whether the Commission erred in applying a “no net harm” standard of review. c. Whether the conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 3. Whether the Commission erred in authorizing the Contract under 35-A M.R.S. §1101. The issues within this point of error include but are not limited to: a. Whether the Commission erred in applying a “no net harm” standard of review. b. Whether the conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 2 4. Whether the Commission erred in concluding the Contract does not require approval as a “special contract” under 35-A M.R.S. § 703, or in the alternative that it is approvable “because NWNA is receiving no rate or tariff benefit in its purchase of water from the Company via its base contract.” The issues within this point of error include but are not limited to: a. Whether the Commission construed the statutory requirements too narrowly. b. Whether the Commission erred in applying a “no net harm” standard of review. c. Whether the conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 5. Whether the Commission violated FWW’s due process rights or otherwise committed error by: a. granting NWNA’s motion to quash a subpoena and denying the opportunity to have officers of NWNA testify at the hearing; b. having Commissioners with conflicts, who later recused themselves, make evidentiary rulings, including but not limited to granting NWNA’s motion to quash, where one of the Commissioners previously represented NWNA in a substantially related matter before the Commission; c. issuing a decision by two newly appointed alternate Commissioners with no Commission experience, who did not participate in the proceedings or hear the testimony of witnesses, after the two Commissioners who did participate in the proceedings and in the testimonial hearing recused themselves; d. denying FWW’s August 14, 2013 Motion for a Hearing and Procedural Conference to be heard on the question of presenting further evidence and argument before the newly appointed Commissioners. 3 In satisfaction of M.R. App.P (2)(1), we understand that transcripts have been prepared for all technical conferences and testimonial hearings in this proceeding and request that they be included in the record. In satisfaction of 35-A M.R.S. §1320(4) the undersigned attorney certifies his opinion that there is probable ground for the appeal as to make it a fit subject for judicial inquiry and that it is not intended for delay. Dated at Portland, Maine this 20th day of February, 2015. /s/ Bruce A. McGlauflin Attorney for Intervenors/Appellants Petruccelli, Martin & Haddow, LLP Two Monument Square, Suite 900 Post Office Box 17555 Portland, Maine 04112-8555 (207) 775-0200 By: Bruce A. McGlauflin, Esquire Maine Bar #8337 With copies mailed to: Anita and Timothy Hafford William Harriman 4