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







          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.







          Item 6 through Item 8.  Not applicable.







                                      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