The PUC went on to state that even if KLPD were able to make the requisite showing, the PUC would still have to consider the broader question of overall “public convenience and necessity,” including the impact of allowing competition in electricity distribution. The PUC distinguished KLPD’s case from a prior case which authorized the resale of telephone service. See Standish Telephone Company v. Public Utilities Commission, 499 A.2d 458 (Me. 1985). In particular, the PUC argued that such telephone service did not involve any duplication of facilities, whereas KLPD’s petition would potentially result in either the duplication of facilities or the displacement of CMP, with resulting inefficiencies and higher costs. The PUC reasoned that “[i]t is undoubtedly more efficient to have only one set of facilities, which suggests that only one utility would provide service, even though there could be no legal compulsion for either utility to cease providing service,” and “[i]f KLPD were to become the sole provider, it would either have to build its own facilities (and CMP would remove its facilities, presumably at some cost to [KLPD’s] customers) or [KLPD] would have to purchase CMP’s facilities,” which CMP was unwilling to sell. Morevoer, the PUC stated that “[a]t the current time, there is no national or State policy favoring the promotion of competition for electric distribution service,” and “[t]here is no reason to believe that electric distribution service is not still a natural monopoly.”