customers, its surplus, or its equity in the business to “subsidize” its regulated line. [¶ 24] Even if we were to accept Anthem’s argument that the general prohibition against cross-subsidization applied in utility ratemaking similarly applies to the statutory framework of 24-A M.R.S. § 2736, Anthem has provided no evidence that cross-subsidization is in fact occurring in this case. The anti-cross-subsidization principle announced in Me. Water Co., 482 A.2d at 455-57, would require Anthem to establish that the allegedly “inadequate” rates approved by the Superintendent are causing a situation where the costs of paying for and providing the individual product lines are being borne by a corresponding increase in the rates of Anthem’s non-regulated group insurance. See id. at 455-56 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 25] There is no evidence in the record to
holding costs of service of subpoenas recoverable holding that the legislature granted exclusive authority over ratemaking to the public service commission recognizing that although provision of municipal service is not fundamental right inequitable provision of that service is subject to equal protection analysis holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service recognizing the fundamental objective in utility ratemaking  that customers who benefit from a service should bear the costs of providing that service quotation marks omitted