The referendum is an excess that could have far-reaching negative effects

The BDN editorial team operates independently from the newsroom and does not set any guidelines or contribute to the reporting or editing of articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.

Do you want to ban the construction of high-efficiency electrical transmission lines in the Upper Kennebec region and require lawmakers to approve all other such projects anywhere in Maine retrospectively to 2020 and to require lawmakers to approve such projects with public land retrospectively to 2014 with a two-thirds majority?

The main objective of question 1 is to stop the New England Clean Energy Connect, a transmission line that would run 245 miles through West Maine to bring hydropower from Quebec to Massachusetts. Bay State is paying for the project as part of its clean energy plans. Some of that cleaner electricity will go to Maine, along with a package of benefits including investments in broadband, heat pumps, and education.

This initiative is the wrong way to address objections to the corridor, and if passed, its language could have far-reaching implications beyond this transmission line project.

For this reason we propose a no to question 1.

A yes to question 1 has the potential to largely integrate Maine into our current energy mix, which is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and could hamper efforts to combat climate change. Companies that own fossil fuel power plants and nuclear power plants that generate electricity in Maine and neighboring states, three of which fund a yes vote in the referendum, could lose $ 1.8 billion over 15 years if the corridor breaks goes online bringing cheaper electricity to the region. according to an economic analysis published by Corridor proponents.

We first sponsored the construction of New England Clean Energy Connect, a spin-off from Central Maine Power Co., in 2019 because we believe this can be part of the work needed by Maine and the region to diversify our energy supplies fight climate change. Three separate analyzes, including one sponsored by project opponents, have estimated that introducing hydropower via the pipeline would reduce New England’s carbon emissions by at least 3 million tons per year.

The first sentence in the question would ban the NECEC corridor, which is already under construction and follows existing CMP corridors for about two-thirds of its length, with 53 miles of a new 54-foot corridor from Quebec to The Forks. It would also ban all future high-efficiency electrical transmission lines, which the referendum defines as a line longer than 80 miles that can operate at 345 kilovolts or more and is not primarily used for reliability or connection, in the Upper Kennebec region , an area roughly from Jackman to Bingham. The region’s land is primarily used for commercial forestry and is criss-crossed by roads and other infrastructure, including hydroelectric plants.

The second two parts of the question focus on a 1 mile (1.6 km) section of the corridor that traverses public land near The Forks. A provision of the Maine Constitution states that public land used for “conservation or recreational purposes …

Since the public land in question is for the timber industry, not conservation or recreation, and is already traversed by a small power line, the Maine Bureau of Public Lands determined in 2014 that no legal review is required to grant CMP a lease on the public land.

A Maine Supreme Court judge recently disagreed, saying the office did not have a due process of determining a material change and the leases had been vacated. The decision was appealed. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is holding a public hearing Tuesday on whether to suspend the license it granted the NECEC based on the judge’s judgment.

The wording in the legislation that would be passed if Question 1 were adopted would essentially expand the text of the Maine Constitution, making it a two-thirds of the time on public land for a variety of projects, including transmission lines, jetties, pipelines, and railroad tracks legal permits are required. This language applies retrospectively to 2014 when the BPL first approved a lease for CMP.

It would also include a provision in state law that requires a majority vote in the legislature to approve high-impact transmission line projects anywhere in Maine, even if they are not on public land. This would involve the legislature in the approval process and give politicians potential veto rights against approvals from other non-partisan authorities.

The three provisions in Question 1, specifically the new legal permit requirement, are an excess that could hinder future projects and investments in Maine.

We fear the passage of Question 1 would send a worrying message to those looking to invest in Maine and develop larger projects that the state’s regulatory environment is too uncertain. The corridor has received approval from seven federal and state agencies and more than a dozen municipal permits, most of which have included opportunities for public comment or hearing.

CMP has done itself a disservice through its ongoing abuse of customer service and billing errors and its opposition to many renewable energy projects. It is clear that the company has diverted vital resources away from serving its customers in order to pursue and develop the new transmission corridor.

The CMP and its associated groups took a risk by beginning the construction of the corridor while legal controversy and the voting issue emerged.

Also worried many Mainers is that CMP, owned by Spanish company Iberdrola, and Hydro-Quebec, owned by the Province of Quebec, will be making big bucks on this project. Energy companies that financially support a yes to question 1 will continue to make a lot of money if the measure is passed. Most of these companies, which generate energy from a variety of sources such as natural gas, oil, and nuclear, are not headquartered in Maine. This decision is not about rewarding or punishing these companies – it is about evaluating an energy opportunity for Maine.

If Question 1 passes, we fear that an opportunity is being lost to make New England and Maine energy supplies a little cleaner, and a message will be sent that Maine does not have the investment and infrastructure to do this vital work is welcome.

Comments are closed.