Municipal electric companies slow to incorporate clean energy, often rely on nuclear power

Inspiring Climate Action

When the film “Don’t Look Up” was released in December 2021 it got a big reaction from a group who usually don’t do film reviews – climate scientists. The film tells the story of two astronomers attempting to warn humanity about an approaching comet that will destroy human civilization, but it felt incredibly close to home for those who had been entrenched in climate work. Here at Acadia Center the film prompted a spirited discussion including favorite lines from the film (“Keep it simple. No math.” “…but it’s all math”). But the big takeaway for the Acadia Center team, and for climate scientists at large, was a feeling of painful recognition – we know the “comet” is coming, but how can we encourage people to act?

Inspiring climate action and gaining support for work that is often technical and slow has been a challenge since “global warming” first came to the mainstream in the 1980s. However, as action is more urgently needed, new techniques for communicating about the crisis are emerging. In 2005 Yale founded its Program on Climate Communication and starting in 2008 that program has produced reports on “The Six Americas”, which breaks down the attitudes of Americans when it comes to climate change into six groups: “Alarmed, “Concerned,” “Cautious,” “Disengaged,” “Doubtful” and “Dismissive.”

From when the surveys began in 2008 until as recently as 2015 “Alarmed” was the second smallest group. However, over the last few years there has been a rapid growth in “Alarmed,” with that segment growing by 15% between 2017 and 2021 to 33% of the total audience. About six in ten Americans (59%) are either Alarmed or Concerned, while only about 2 in 10 (19%) are Doubtful or Dismissive.

So, how does this new awareness transform into action and financial support for climate advocacy, especially in a time of upheaval in the fundraising world? The Covid-19 pandemic completely changed the fundraising world in 2020, with many people giving to new organizations for the first time. The Fundraising Effectiveness Project’s (FEP) quarterly fundraising report for 2021 Q4 found that although major donors are being retained from 2020, recapture rates for past donors are down about 19% industry-wide, underlining the importance of keeping every donor engaged and excited about the work. On the other hand, organizations focused on “Environment and Animals” saw large year-over-year gains, reflecting Yale’s finding that more Americans are “Alarmed” about climate change and looking for a way to help.

Acadia Center is an organization that thrives on data, and we are excited to use these findings from Yale and FEP in our 2022 communication and individual giving strategy. Currently, we are working on a new newsletter that will give supporters an in-the-weeds and behind-the-scenes look at the work Acadia Center staffers are doing to advance bold and equitable climate solutions on the local, state, and regional level. Keep an eye out in the next year for more webinars with Acadia Center staff, more blogs and resources on our website, and more opportunities to learn about exciting climate change solutions.

Every individual’s support matters in the fight for a sustainable world, and together we can make the change that seems so impossible in films like “Don’t Look Up.” As the star of that film, Leonardo DiCaprio said, “It is incumbent upon all of us, all of you, activists, young and old, to please get involved…The planet can no longer wait, the underprivileged can no longer be ignored. This is truly our moment for action. Please take action.”

SOURCES:

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Global Warming’s Six Americas, September 2021

Fundraising Effectiveness Project, Fourth Quarter Fundraising Report, 2021

Lawmakers, some renewable advocates urge FERC to reject ISO-NE plan to delay MOPR elimination

Dive Brief:

• ISO New England’s proposal to keep its “minimum offer price rule” until 2025 will hurt the Northeast’s efforts to build renewable energy facilities like offshore wind farms and should be rejected, lawmakers, the Massachusetts attorney general and renewable energy advocates and developers told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Thursday.
• “The primary effect of the MOPR reform delay would be to impede market entry by offshore wind resources,” Conservation Law Foundation, the Acadia Center and other groups said in a joint filing at FERC. “The ISO has presented zero evidence that such a change in the resource mix will reduce reliability, rather than improve it.”
• However, the plan is backed by power plant owners, power suppliers and ISO-NE’s market monitor, and the New England States Committee on Electricity, representing the region’s governors, doesn’t oppose it, according to filings at FERC.

Dive Insight:

ISO-NE started a stakeholder process in May to consider options for eliminating its MOPR, which critics contend impedes state energy goals by preventing state-supported resources from winning capacity bids in the grid operator’s annual capacity auctions.

At the time, ISO-NE supported eliminating the MOPR before the next auction set to be held in February. But in January, the grid operator decided to support a proposal to keep the MOPR for two additional years, with a 700-MW exemption for state-supported resources. In its March 31 proposal, ISO-NE said ending the MOPR immediately could lead to the sudden retirement of power plants, threatening grid reliability in the region.

More than 4,700 MW of nameplate offshore wind, or about 1,310 MW of qualified capacity, is slated to begin operating by 2028, the period that would be covered by auctions affected by ISO-NE’s transition proposal, according to New England For Offshore Wind, an advocacy group. The grid operator’s proposed 700-MW exemption for qualified capacity would keep some offshore projects from winning capacity bids, driving up ratepayer costs, the group told FERC.

Sens. Edward Markey, D-Mass., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., urged FERC to reject ISO-NE’s proposal, which they said would hurt New England’s decarbonization efforts and lead to higher electricity prices.

“At the very moment when New England should be fully embracing the transition to renewables and the related socioeconomic opportunities, this decision to undermine state actions and renewable energy deployment is a terrible and ill-timed mistake,” they said in a letter to FERC.

Other parties urging FERC to order ISO-NE to immediately end its MOPR include the Massachusetts attorney general, a group of New England state lawmakers and the American Council on Renewable Energy.

Some renewable energy advocates are reluctantly supporting the proposed transition away from the MOPR.

Rejecting the proposal could lead to an extended stakeholder process, possibly delaying the upcoming capacity auction and other market reforms, Advanced Energy Economy, said in a filing at FERC.

“We believe that approval is the least disruptive path forward for the region given where the process leading to this filing has left us,” the trade group said, noting ISO-NE’s abrupt decision to delay ending the MOPR left stakeholders little time to review the plan.

NESCOE, which has sought to end the MOPR, isn’t opposing the delay in ending it because ISO-NE’s proposal provides “a clear, defined, and expedient path for reforming market mitigation rules with a fixed and near-term end-date,” the organization told FERC.

Potomac Economics, ISO-NE’s market monitor, supported the grid operator’s transition plan, saying it would give ISO-NE time to make other needed market changes such as revising how it accredits capacity and accounts for growing financial risk for power plant owners.

“This will alleviate the adverse economic impacts and risks to reliability of implementing the MOPR changes immediately,” the market monitor said.

Power plant owners and power marketers also support ISO-NE’s plan, which was modeled on proposals from Vistra, Dynegy, Calpine and Nautilus Power.

“This graduated elimination of the MOPR will allow ISO-NE and [New England Power Pool] stakeholders the time to make the wholesale market design changes necessary to avoid the increased risks MOPR elimination creates, including implementation of a new capacity accreditation methodology and day-ahead reserve or call-option products in the day-ahead energy market,” the New England Power Generators Association said in a filing at FERC.

The Electric Power Supply Association also backs ISO-NE’s proposal, partly because it gives the grid operator time to put in place other market reforms, according to comments at FERC.

The trade group for competitive power suppliers noted it supports a New York Independent System Operator proposal to eliminate its MOPR because the New York plan includes related market reforms.

Read the full article in Utility Dive here.

New England for Offshore Wind Urges Federal Regulator to Reject ISO-New England Proposal

April 20, 2022 – Yesterday, the New England for Offshore Wind coalition called on federal regulators at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reject ISO-New England’s (ISO-NE) proposal to delay the elimination of a market rule that disproportionately impacts offshore wind and would increase costs for ratepayers. In a letter to FERC, the coalition underscored the importance of offshore wind to state climate goals, highlighted the momentum of offshore wind policy across the country, and pushed back on ISO-NE’s claims that offshore wind development is uncertain. ISO-NE’s proposal to delay the elimination of the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) would prevent the fair participation of clean energy in regional markets and drive up consumer costs by incentivizing the procurement of unnecessary and redundant energy generation capacity in the region.

Offshore wind is our best opportunity for new sources of clean, renewable energy in New England, which boasts the best offshore wind resources in the country. Expanding local, renewable energy is critical to our efforts to prevent the worst impacts of climate change and increase energy security in these times of instability due to the conflict in Ukraine. Developed responsibly, offshore wind has the potential to create tens of thousands of high-quality, family-sustaining jobs; provide health benefits to vulnerable communities through pollution reduction; ensure equity in economic benefits; coexist with existing ocean uses; and protect wildlife and the environment every step of the way.

New England for Offshore Wind is a broad-based coalition of associations, businesses, environmental and justice organizations, institutions, and labor unions committed to combatting climate change by increasing the supply of clean energy to our regional grid through more procurements of responsibly developed offshore wind. We believe that responsibly developed offshore wind is the single biggest lever we can pull to address the climate crisis while also strengthening our regional economy, protecting ratepayers, creating high quality jobs, and improving public health by reducing pollution.

Susannah Hatch, Environmental League of Massachusetts Director of Clean Energy Policy and New England for Offshore Wind Regional Lead, said:
“Responsibly developed offshore wind will be the workhorse of our decarbonization efforts in our region, and it holds enormous potential to grow the economy, meet our energy needs, and create equitable economic benefits for decades to come. ISO-NE should allow that transition to take place instead of hindering states’ ability to achieve their climate goals and burdening ratepayers with unnecessary costs.”

Melissa Birchard, Acadia Center Director for Clean Energy and Grid Reform, said:
“Offshore wind is one of the most promising energy opportunities of this decade and, combined with energy storage, can be a key to addressing climate change and grid reliability in New England. We call on FERC to direct ISO-New England to stop dragging its feet on clean energy and eliminate the backward Minimum Offer Price Rule now – not years down the road – so that the region can meet its climate goals in time to protect communities from danger.”

Launa Zimmaro, League of Women Voters Massachusetts Legislative Specialist, Climate Change and Energy, said:
“Maintaining the MOPR would have real and lasting impacts on the health and well-being of residents in the Commonwealth, as well as our opportunities to grow a clean energy economy in the region.”

Charles Rothenberger, Save the Sound Climate and Energy Attorney and New England for Offshore Wind Connecticut State Lead, said:
“Removing the barriers to clean, renewable energy and supporting state efforts to transition to zero-carbon resources should be fundamental to the operation of our regional energy market. Every year that we delay reforming or eliminating the market rules that disadvantage renewable resources makes it more difficult and more expensive to address the pressing climate and air quality issues we face.”

John Carlson, Ceres Manager of State Policy and New England for Offshore Wind Business Lead said:
“New England states are making informed, considered policy decisions to forge a new clean energy economy in the region. Local, renewable energy resources will drive investment in the region, reduce emissions, create jobs, and insulate us from volatile fossil fuels markets. The continued imposition of the Minimum Offer Price Rule will delay and reduce the ability of states to reap these benefits in the long-term and drive up ratepayer costs in the near term. ISO-NE should eliminate this protectionist rule immediately and embrace the just transition to a clean energy future.”

Logan Malik, Massachusetts Climate Action Network Clean Energy Director, said:
“The rapid deployment of offshore wind is critical for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to meet its 2030, 2040, and 2050 climate goals. ISO-NE’s proposal to delay repealing MOPR by two years will unnecessarily slow our progress towards meeting our emissions reduction targets and extend the life of old and dirty facilities that are polluting our communities. FERC should reject this proposal. In doing so they would be supporting grid reliability, energy security, and the growth of a promising industry that will create thousands of good-paying jobs in New England.”

Jen Benson, The Alliance for Business Leadership President, said:
“In delaying a decision on MOPR, ISO-NE is making it harder for renewables to gain access to the energy market by artificially raising the cost of clean energy to allow more expensive fossil fuels to “compete”. Ultimately this hurts ratepayers, impacts our economy, and potentially reduces New England-based innovation and investment. In order for Massachusetts to reach its own climate goals, we must project a consistent message that renewable energy will be valued fairly in forward capacity markets to ensure that near and long-term investment continues.”

William Sedlack, Maine Conservation Voters Program Manager and New England for Offshore Wind Maine State Lead, said:
“We call on ISO-NE to be a partner with Maine and the rest of New England in the transition to a just clean energy future. Delaying the elimination of the Minimum Offer Price Rule blocks clean energy from being able to fairly compete and participate in the market, burdens taxpayers, and wastes time that we do not have as states in a geographically vulnerable region to climate impacts.”

About Acadia Center 

Acadia Center is a nonprofit research and advocacy organization committed to advancing the clean energy future. Acadia Center advocates for an equitable clean energy future for Connecticut, tackling regulatory and legislative energy policy, transportation, energy efficiency, beneficial electrification, utility innovation, and renewable energy. 

Media Contacts:

Ellen Macaulay, Environmental League of Massachusetts
emacaulay@environmentalleague.org
617-742-2553

Melissa Birchard, Acadia Center
mbirchard@acadiacenter.org
857-276-6883

Clean Energy and Consumer Groups Call on FERC to Reject ISO New England’s Proposal to Delay Key Energy Market Reform

BOSTON, MA (April 21, 2022) – Today, 11 New England clean energy and consumer advocacy organizations filed a protest urging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reject ISO New England’s proposal to delay reforming the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) and require an immediate fix to this anti-competitive rule.

The MOPR artificially inflates the cost of clean energy, giving an advantage to more expensive fossil fuel power plants in ISO-NE’s forward capacity market. The rule has extended the life of highly-polluting, uneconomical plants and incentivized continued investment in fossil fuel infrastructure while preventing affordable, clean energy from entering the market. As a result, the MOPR imposes higher electricity costs on customers and perpetuates air pollution in historically impacted fenceline communities across New England. The rule also undercuts New England states’ efforts to address the threat of climate change by decarbonizing the electric grid.

“FERC has an obligation to immediately fix ISO New England’s Minimum Offer Price Rule,” said Hannah Birnbaum, Sierra Club Northeast Deputy Director of Energy Campaigns. “The rule has needlessly increased electricity bills and stifled job growth in clean energy for years. Fenceline communities are facing dirty air and long-term health risks because the MOPR protects uneconomic fossil fuel plants that would have otherwise retired long ago. The economic and health costs of keeping the MOPR in place for two more years are unjustifiable. We can’t allow the fossil fuel industry to get in the way of making responsible and cost-effective improvements to our energy system.”

“New England’s residents are demanding clean energy. So why is the region’s grid operator trying to put up roadblocks and delays to this transition?” said Bruce Ho of the Sustainable FERC Project at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). “FERC needs to step in and ensure clean solar and wind power get a chance to compete in New England’s electricity capacity market – and that they get that chance today, not in 2025.”

“ISO New England promised the New England states and the public to eliminate the discriminatory MOPR rule in the next capacity auction and then backed out of that promise at the last moment,” said Melissa Birchard, Director of Clean Energy and Grid Reform at Acadia Center. “FERC should hold ISO New England to its original proposal – vetted by stakeholders over the course of more than 12 meetings – to eliminate the MOPR now, without delay. Every excuse not to reform the markets to let clean energy compete fairly now puts our children and communities at greater risk from pollution and the climate emergency.”

“The climate crisis is threatening our health and safety as we speak. Nearly every New England state has climate laws that require slashing polluting emissions, and clean energy sources like wind and solar are the keys to reaching these goals,” said Conservation Law Foundation Senior Attorney Phelps Turner. “But ISO New England’s attempt to keep the Minimum Offer Price Rule on the books prevents electricity from these sources from being delivered into our homes. ISO’s decision to keep this rule alive for two more years allows polluting fossil fuel plants to keep running, costs electricity customers millions of dollars, and creates a major roadblock to safeguarding a livable world in the face of climate change. The rule cannot be allowed to stand.”

“”The latest IPCC report warns that we are running out of time to prevent the worst of the climate crisis. New England’s grid operator is making it harder for the region to power our homes, businesses, and transportation with clean energy. We’re asking FERC to stand up for what New England residents have already demanded: a clean grid powered by renewable solar and wind and freedom from polluting fossil fuels,” said Danielle Fidler, Earthjustice Senior Attorney.

“ISO’s administratively set pricing floor creates a bias in favor of existing resources and is slowing the transition to a cleaner grid at great expense to consumers. The ISO has simply not justified its proposal to delay the elimination of this artificial barrier,” said Francis Pullaro, Executive Director of RENEW Northeast.

​​“Competitive energy markets are essential to ensuring cost-effective and reliable electricity,” said Jolette Westbrook, Director and Senior Attorney, Energy Markets & Regulation at Environmental Defense Fund. “Unfortunately, ISO New England’s proposal moves the region in the wrong direction, accomplishing little to improve reliability, delaying the deployment of renewable energy and increasing costs for electricity customers. Market barriers must be eliminated for New England to get the reliable, affordable and clean electricity it deserves.”

About Acadia Center 

Acadia Center is a nonprofit research and advocacy organization committed to advancing the clean energy future. Acadia Center advocates for an equitable clean energy future for Connecticut, tackling regulatory and legislative energy policy, transportation, energy efficiency, beneficial electrification, utility innovation, and renewable energy. 

Media Contacts:

Adil Trehan, Sierra Club
adil.trehan@sierraclub.org
202-630-7275

Melissa Birchard, Acadia Center
mbirchard@acadiacenter.org
857-276-6883

Phelps Turner, Conservation Law Foundation
pturner@clf.org
207-210-6439

Mark Drajem, NRDC
mdrajem@nrdc.org
202-297-5444

Advocacy groups back Massachusetts climate change bills

(The Center Square) – Calls to adopt swift, sweeping legislation to advance a 2050 net-zero emissions target have been sounded in both chambers of the Massachusetts Legislature, and advocates from a number of organizations have backed the plans.

But the aggressive legislative plans, which come a year after Republican Gov. Charlie Baker signed a climate change bill, have also prompted pleas to look at the bigger picture and the extent natural gas might play in the decades ahead.

Two companion pieces of legislation – Senate Bill 2819 and House Bill 4515 – would advance offshore wind and clean energy policy across Massachusetts. The bills have been debated this legislative session, most recently amid Senate deliberations held April 14.

On a more granular level, legislative panels have been digging into the nuts and bolts of potential policies that could be enacted in the years ahead with the 2050 benchmark in mind.

While Baker’s bill set the nearly three-decade mark, Massachusetts has a long road ahead in achieving it, said state Sen. Cynthia Creem, D-Newton, who chairs the Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change.

“In my view, reaching net zero-emissions requires that the future of gas is largely a future without gas,” Creem said at a recent committee hearing. “However, Massachusetts is currently doubling down on natural gas.”

At the April 4 hearing, Creem and other senators on the panel took testimony from a range of academians, lobbyists, grassroots organizers and other interested parties. Creem said the multi-faceted issues that feed into net-zero emissions “are incredibly complex.”

Nearly all of the speakers at the committee hearing encouraged lawmakers to double down on net-zero emissions policies in short order.

But John Buonopane, president of the United Steelworkers union, offered his own take on the matter. The USW represents the New England Gas Workers Alliance.

“We strongly believe that natural gas will continue for many years to be an important and necessary resource for the commonwealth’s clean energy future,” Buonopane said. “We know that with appropriate oversight, natural gas can and probably will remain an efficient, affordable and safe energy for residents of the commonwealth for decades to come.”

If state legislation related to net-zero emissions is not methodically carried out, Buonopane said he is concerned workers within the alliance will be negatively impacted – a scenario, he said, that could have ripple effects through the state economy.

“We are talking about good, middle-class jobs that have taken years to reach the level to be considered a good middle-class job,” Buonopane said. “It is a very important part of this I don’t think is getting enough attention.”

But others testified on the state’s race toward net-zero emissions policies.

Amy Boyd is director of policy at the Acadia Center, an organization that advocates for climate change policy by electrifying buildings and transportation.

“We need a real process in how we pay for heat,” Boyd said. “To put it bluntly, we need a lot more innovation here, a lot more change, a lot more process. I think the Legislature can have a strong role in helping us get there.”

Bob Howarth, a biochemistry professor at Cornell University, also spoke to the Senate panel about several issues, including discussion around the natural gas industry’s clean energy strategy. In particular, Howarth said he was concerned with hydrogen.

“There’s no way it should ever go into a pipeline,” Howarth said. “It’s coercive; it’s dangerous. It should not be used for home heating.”

Read the full article in The Center Square here.

House Democrats reverse course and Legislature passes utility accountability bill

A day after delivering a major setback to Democratic Gov. Janet Mills’ plan to hold utility companies more accountable, House Democrats reversed course Wednesday and approved a slightly modified version of the bill.

The legislation would establish key performance measures for electricity providers in areas ranging from reliability to customer relations and impose financial penalties for failing to meet those goals. It also would add whistleblower protections for employees and contractors who report problems with operations. And it would change the way utility companies plan grid upgrades.

Rep. Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham, had previously criticized the bill, saying utility companies would essentially be allowed to grade their own performance. He railed against the bill as offering “fake accountability.”

But Berry said he would support the bill after a relatively minor amendment offered by Rep. Chris Kessler, D-South Portland, requiring the Public Utilities Commission to ensure that public utilities procure goods and services through a competitive bidding process.

“This is not the bill I would have written,” said Berry, who is an organizer of the Our Power campaign to establish a consumer-owned utility through a citizen referendum, “but it’s now a step forward, so today I stand to take one small step with all of you and the state of Maine to vote, ‘yea.’ ”

The measure passed the House in a 77-56 vote.

The Senate approved the House version of the bill without debate Wednesday, meaning it will likely go to the governor’s desk for her signature.

Clean energy advocates applauded the reversal, pointing to a provision that would require integrated grid planning for clean energy projects.

“Legislators snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, and over a turbulent 24 hours of negotiations, rescued the bill and agreed that it was time to hold utilities accountable for their abysmal, but hopefully improving performance,” said Jeff Marks, Maine director and senior policy advocate at the Acadia Center.

“Energy issues are complex and are often held to the end and heavily fought over during the closing days of legislative sessions,” Marks continued. “This bill was no different, but its impact will benefit Maine’s ratepayers while planning the electricity grid for a clean energy future.”

The bill is aimed at the state’s two investor-owned utilities, Spanish-owned Central Maine Power and Canadian-owned Versant, over poor customer service and unreliable performance.

CMP ranked last in a consumer satisfaction survey last year by J.D. Power.

The bill would require quarterly report cards grading utilities’ ability to meet minimum standards for customer service, complaints, reliability and power restoration. It would impose a fine of $1 million, or 10 percent of annual revenue, for multiple failing report cards. Continued failure could trigger a forced sale to another power company or a consumer-owned utility.

It also would add more protection for whistleblowers who report illegal or improper behavior by a utility, authorize the PUC to audit utilities’ financial information and require utilities to submit regular plans to address the impact of climate change on their infrastructure.

The proposal drew extensive public comment at a hearing before the Energy and Utilities Committee, which struggled to reach consensus and instead voted out three different versions of the bill.

Republicans continued to oppose the bill, saying it will lead to increase electricity costs for ratepayers at a time they can ill-afford them amid record high inflation.

While power companies could not recoup fines from ratepayers, any systemwide improvements to avoid future fines could be recouped, including those to accommodate the grid for more solar projects, he said.

“That is going to have a substantial impact on your constituents’ utility bill,” Sen. Trey Stewart said Tuesday, noting how Mainers already are struggling to pay their bills. “They are frustrated about the number at the bottom of their bill and they are looking to us to make sure it doesn’t get unnecessarily larger.”

Read the full article in the Portland Press Herald here.

Democrats solve intraparty split to advance Janet Mills’ utility accountability measure

AUGUSTA, Maine — Lawmakers advanced a new version of Gov. Janet Mills’ priority utility accountability bill on Wednesday, one day after a previous version failed due to division among Democrats in the House of Representatives.

The bill that passed the House 77-56 on Wednesday will allow the Maine Public Utilities Commission to set service standards for its major utilities, Central Maine Power Co. and Versant Power, and impose penalties if they fail to meet them. It also empowers the commission to work on reliability planning for the state’s power grid and reduce carbon emissions.

Mills put forward legislation earlier this year as a possible compromise between Central Maine Power Co., the embattled utility, and its harshest critics. An amended version of the bill passed the Maine Senate on Tuesday but was rejected by the House as both Republican lawmakers and Democrats who are among the fiercest CMP critics voted against it.

Democrats solved their split on Wednesday to vote for a revised version of the bill. The version that passed both chambers included additional provisions requiring the Public Utilities Commission to look into requiring utilities to use competitive bidding for certain projects and allowing it to audit utilities more frequently.

Among the holdouts on the measure on Tuesday were Reps. Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham, and Nicole Grohoski, D-Ellsworth. Both have helped lead the public push for a consumer-owned utility in the Legislature. Proponents are now trying to put that issue before voters in a 2023 referendum. Both Berry and Grohoski voted for the latest version.

“This is not the bill I would have written but it is now a step forward,” said Berry, who co-chairs the energy committee and is perhaps Augusta’s most outspoken CMP critic.

Environmental groups that had slammed the Legislature’s failure to pass the bill on Tuesday praised the votes on Wednesday. Jeff Marks, senior policy advocate at the Acadia Center, characterized it as “the most impactful climate and clean energy bill” of the legislative session.

Read the full article in the Bangor Daily News here. 

Maine Voices: Time is now for utility accountability, modernized energy grid

Now is the time to hold Central Maine Power and Versant – Maine’s investor-owned utilities –accountable for poor performance, and it’s long past time to modernize our electrical grid to meet Maine’s climate and energy independence needs. Mainers are counting on their elected leaders to stand up for them as corporations fail to put the needs of customers first. Never has that been more clear than it is now, as people across Maine struggle with spiking energy costs.

Fortunately, Maine lawmakers have an opportunity to make progress on both fronts by passing an amended version of L.D. 1959, the governor’s utility accountability bill. I was pleased to introduce L.D. 1959 as the lead sponsor, and I knew that we could strengthen this bill through the legislative process to a point where it was deserving of strong support – and that’s exactly what has happened.

Maine people have every right to expect much better service than they’ve been getting in recent years. According to J.D. Power, CMP ranked dead last for customer service among the nation’s largest 145 electric utilities, and Versant tied for fourth worst with the notorious Pacific Gas & Electric. It’s unacceptable. Maine people deserve reliable service, accurate bills and utility companies that are supporting our clean-energy goals.

Personally, I support the concept of a consumer-owned utility and hope that Mainers get a chance to vote on a referendum to shift our investor-owned utilities to a consumer-owned model. But that’s a long-term solution. What lawmakers have before them now is a bill to provide accountability for utilities, starting immediately, regardless of who owns them.

L.D. 1959 sends a clear message to our utilities: Improve your performance, get fined or be replaced.

The amended bill requires the Public Utilities Commission to establish standards in critical areas, such as reliability and customer service. The bill sets mandatory financial penalties and doubles the penalties the PUC can impose, with forced sale as the ultimate penalty for a failing utility. The bill also expands and strengthens whistleblower protections. Maine’s Public Advocate has said that even one or two whistleblower reports could result in major benefits for Maine ratepayers.

The other big part of this bill involves integrated grid planning, which holds the potential to save ratepayers millions of dollars. Maine needs a holistic grid plan as we move to use more renewable and independent energy sources. A stakeholder group last year identified grid planning as a top priority. Right now, the utilities do grid planning on their own. This means utilities do all of their planning behind closed doors, with no public involvement and no mandate to consider what’s best for ratepayers. That has to end.

We know that planning matters. A pilot project in Boothbay is projected to save $18.7 million over a 10-year period. If similar planning were applied to CMP’s grid, it could save ratepayers nearly $1 billion over time.

L.D. 1959 has earned the support of groups including the Acadia Center, the Conservation Law Foundation, Maine Conservation Voters, The Nature Conservancy in Maine and the Natural Resources Council of Maine. The version of the bill coming before the Legislature is the product of hard work and thoughtful compromise. I am proud to sponsor this bill, and I’ll be just as proud to join my colleagues in voting for it in the Senate chamber.

With L.D. 1959, lawmakers have a chance to make significant progress in holding Maine’s utilities accountable and taking big strides in modernizing our electrical grid for the clean-energy future. We owe it to Maine ratepayers to act now.

Read the full article in the Portland Press Herald here.

Democratic split threatens to kill Janet Mills’ utility accountability proposal

AUGUSTA, Maine – A split among Democrats in the Maine House of Representatives led the chamber to reject a bill from Gov. Janet Mills on Tuesday aimed at enshrining penalties for Maine’s largest utilities if they fail to meet certain service standards.

Mills initially put the legislation forward this year as a possible compromise that could bridge the divide between allies of Central Maine Power Co. and its harshest critics. Its failure renders it unlikely that the Legislature will take major steps to address the unpopular utility in 2022.

On the House floor Tuesday, several lawmakers argued that the Democratic governor’s bill did not go far enough to ensure CMP and Versant Power would be held accountable for the quality and costs of service. Lawmakers voted to table it after rejecting a version that easily passed the Senate earlier in the day.

Environmental groups had largely backed the bill, which would have enabled the Maine Public Utilities Commission to penalize utilities if they did not meet certain standards. The amended version that passed the Senate also would have required the commission to adopt plans for the state’s power grid to improve reliability and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It had received pushback on several fronts, however, with progressives saying the state needed to be more aggressive. Among the skeptics were chief proponents of a plan to buy out Maine’s major utilities and replace them with a consumer-owned entity. A referendum aiming to do that failed to get enough signatures to make the ballot this year.

The Mills-backed bill was opposed by CMP and Versant, who argued in testimony earlier this year that their service quality improved and they did not need to be subject to possible penalties. The legislative committee that deals with energy issues ultimately advanced three different versions on the bill.

The criticism before it was shot down in the House on Tuesday came from all sides. Rep. Nathan Wadsworth, R-Hiram, expressed concern that that bill would drive up electricity rates. Rep. Nicole Grohoski, D-Ellsworth, of the consumer-owned utility faction, characterized it as “merely lipstick” with “no teeth.”

“I will not go home to my constituents and say that I supported this bill and that they can look forward to better than worst-in-the-nation service and high rates because that would be a false promise,” she said.

Proponents of the bill had argued it was a positive step even if not perfect, with Rep. Ralph Tucker, D-Brunswick, arguing lawmakers could “walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Environmental groups expressed frustration with the vote late Tuesday. Jeff Marks, Senior Policy Advocate at the Acadia Center, said it was “unacceptable” for lawmakers to leave town without taking action to regulate the utilities sector.

“After years of last-place customer service evaluations, billing snafus, and other calamities, legislators failed to put teeth into utilities’ performance and hold them accountable, not just for reliability and affordability, but for the very future of the electricity grid,” he said.

Read the full article in Bangor Daily News here.