In a rare move, a jury is being asked to decide a complicated constitutional matter — whether developers have a vested right to complete the 145-mile (233-kilometer) project, which would supply Canadian hydropower to the
The constitutionality of the statewide referendum on the project depends on the jury’s decision on the narrow vested-rights issue. And the case could turn on a simple majority of jurors.
“We’re not aware of a similar instance in which the fate of a large energy asset rests in the hands of a jury. This is an unusual circumstance,”
The courtroom was packed Monday.
Attorneys for groups opposed to the project and the state attorney general’s office, which is charged with upholding the referendum, suggested to jurors on Monday that developers rushed construction with a goal of winning vested rights and nullifying the referendum.
But
Last year, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court breathed new life into the stalled project when it ruled the retroactive nature of the statewide vote to stop the project would violate the developers’ constitutional rights if substantial construction already had begun in good faith before the referendum. Construction started in
Justice
Central Maine Power’s parent company and
It’s one of two proposed large-scale transmission projects aimed at tapping hydropower from
Early on, developers envisioned smooth sailing because the transmission path would mostly follow existing corridors, with only a new 53-mile (85-kilometer) section crossing sparely populated woods to reach the Canadian border.
But the project encountered opposition each step of the way even as it received all necessary regulatory approvals. Developers already had begun cutting trees and setting poles for months when the governor asked for work to be suspended after voters rejected the project in
Supporters say bold projects such as this one, funded by ratepayers in
Critics say the project’s environmental benefits are overstated — and that it would harm the woodlands in western
In
The constitutional issue will likely end up back before the Supreme Judicial Court regardless of the outcome of the judge's decision after the jury trial.
___
This story has been corrected to show the attorney's name is
Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
, source