SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): February 3,
1994
CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Maine 1-5139 01-0042740
(State of Incorporation) (Commission (IRS Employer
File Number) Identification Number)
83 Edison Drive, Augusta, Maine 04336
(Address of principal executive offices) (zip code)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (207)
623-3521
<PAGE>
Item 1 through Item 4. Not applicable.
Item 5. Other Events.
On February 4, 1994, the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme
Judicial Court (the "Court") issued an Order establishing March
17, 1994, as the date for the oral argument of the Motion to
Dismiss submitted by the Maine Public Utilities Commission (the
"Commission") in connection with the Company's appeal to the
Court of the October 28, 1993 Commission Order establishing a
one-half percent (.5%) return-on-equity penalty (the "ROE
penalty") associated with the Commission's finding that the
Company had been imprudent in its management of certain
independent power producer contracts.
As previously reported, on December 20, 1993, the Chief
Justice, acting on the Company's request, issued an Order staying
the effectiveness of the ROE penalty pending final resolution of
the Company's appeal of the October 28, 1993 Commission Order to
the Court.
On February 3, 1994, the Commission filed a Motion to
Dismiss with the Court, stating that by Order dated February 3,
1994, the Commission had reopened and reconsidered its October
28, 1993 decision. As a result of such reconsideration, the
Commission decided to vacate the ROE penalty conditioned on
either the Company's acquiescence in the Commission's
jurisdiction or a finding by the Court that the Commission
retains jurisdiction, and to consider alternative remedies. The
Commission argued that, because of its February 3 Order the
Company's appeal of the ROE penalty should be dismissed as moot.
The Chief Justice declined to dismiss the appeal and added
the jurisdictional question to the issues to be determined by the
Court.
The Commission in its February 3, 1994 Order indicated that
based on data currently before the Commission a remedy that was
under consideration by the Commission "appears to present an
opportunity to insulate ratepayers sufficiently from CMP's
imprudence . . . .," yet also noted that, "We do not decide at
this time that such a remedy [the difference between the contract
rates found to be imprudent and the avoided cost for that period,
with the contract rates found to be imprudent disregarded in the
avoided-cost calculation] will be adopted." The Commission Order
indicated an intent to seek additional information on the issue
of annual differences between the contract rates and avoided
costs. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the appeal on
either the issue of jurisdiction or the merits of the ROE
penalty, nor is it able to predict the outcome of this issue if
remanded to the Commission, including any subsequent appeal of a
future alternative remedy finding by the Commission.
<PAGE>
Item 6 through Item 8. Not applicable.
<PAGE>
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this amendment to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly
authorized.
CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY
By
David E. Marsh
Senior Vice President, Finance,
and Chief Financial Officer
Dated: February 9, 1994
<PAGE>
