Gov. Janet Mills published the following radio address on Wednesday, finally weighing in decisively against a campaign by the Maine Democratic Socialists of America and national environmental groups to seize Maine’s electrical utilities and place them under government control. The plan is supported by some Maine lawmakers, including Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford) and House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Portland).
When you walk into the voting booth this November 7th, there will be a whopping eight referendum questions for your consideration – and a few of them have enormously high stakes for Maine and for our future.
Hello, this is Governor Janet Mills and thank you for listening.
Now I don’t feel the need to weigh in on every question, but there is at least one that I am pretty concerned about – Question 3, An Act to Create the so-called Pine Tree Power Company.
In its simplest terms, Question 3 would force CMP and Versant to sell their assets to a new public power authority, called Pine Tree Power, through eminent domain.
Proponents of Question 3 use slick slogans like “Maine, not Spain” and poll-tested talking points about returning power to the people.
Sounds good, right? Well, journalist H.L. Mencken once said, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
And that’s how I feel about Question 3.
Here are my three main concerns:
First, the cost. Question 3 will cost Maine people as much as $13.5 billion in borrowed money. That’s more than the entire biennial budget for the State of Maine. And can you imagine the interest payments on $13.5 billion? The cost alone leaves me very concerned that we are proposing to mortgage the future of our children who are going to have to foot this bill years down the road.
And would it lead to lower electricity costs? Well, the Office of the Public Advocate has said there is no guarantee that the price of electricity would come down in the long run under Question 3. And independent analyses indicate that the cost of electricity would likely increase in the short-term and another increase in rates is not what we need.
Second, the structure. Question 3 creates a governing board of elected individuals – in other words, politicians, with no particular credentials. Electing people only injects a level of politics and partisanship into the delivery of our electricity. That’s the last thing we need, and, hey, I’m talking as a politician.
And what would this governing board of politicians be in charge of? Well, they would be required to contract with an operator to run the transmission and utility’s assets. An operator that has “familiarity with the systems to be administered.” So, somebody who looks a lot like CMP and Versant.
So, what we are really talking about here is adding a layer of bureaucracy and politics and partisanship over the existing structure of CMP and Versant and I just don’t see how this improves anything.
Third, the setbacks. Because Question 3 is a hostile take-over of our utilities with eminent domain, we are guaranteed to go to court and to be tied up in litigation for years, if not decades. That leaves our utilities in a dangerous state of limbo when we can least afford it. It also threatens to set back the progress we are making in modernizing the electric grid to achieve clean energy goals and address climate change.
Look, I strongly believe that Maine consumers deserve high quality, reliable, and competent service. That’s why two years ago, over the strenuous objections of the utilities, I introduced and signed into law legislation that sets minimum standards for service, increases penalties, and strengthens oversight of our utilities.
That’s what we should be doing – holding them accountable and improving their service, not launching a hostile take-over that will cost billions of dollars to Maine ratepayers, and inject partisanship into the delivery of our power, and delay the progress we’ve been making.
Like H.L. Mencken said, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” Question 3 presents a rosy solution, but, in reality, I just don’t see how it will improve our utilities or the services they provide. In fact, I fear it might just make things worse.
The stakes are high. And if you have doubts as I do, let’s not gamble with Maine’s future – please vote no on Question 3.
This is Governor Janet Mills and thank you for listening.
Force the first time ever, I completely agree with the governor’s statement – the only sane way to vote on question #3 is NO.
I’m willing to take the chance. Mills and the legislature have had plenty of time and opportunities to lower electricity bills, they choose not to. Maybe its because there wasn’t any money in it for them or that they truly are a bunch of backwoods, unethical, grifters. Just a guess. I’ll be watching to see how much $$ it cost the power company to elicit this response. Bet it wasn’t much.
Vote YES !! Either it passes, or CMP takes notice that Mainers deserve lower bills and our company owners should be living in Maine .
I studied economics in school, and I can tell you that the problem with socializing the electric grid is the following:
When goods and services are produced on the private market, there is competition between producers that ends up benefiting the consumer with high-quality goods and services at low prices.
However, when the government has a monopoly over goods or services, there is no competition, and no incentive to produce high-quality goods at a low price.
Socializing the electric grid would lead to higher electricity prices and lower quality of service. It would lead to constant blackouts and having to wait on hold for an hour to speak to a customer service representative when you call the government’s number.
Please say NO to Communism and socialism and vote NO on question 3!
Thank you Jan. Your comment is absolutely right. If folks think voting for this will reduce their electricity costs they are dreaming. I would like to ask those clamoring for gov’t control to obtain lower electricity costs if they have any idea of what it cost CMP and Versant to produce that electricity? You know they are totally clueless on that point. Before you can lower the cost of anything you have to know the cost input for that product. The last thing we need is for the gov’t to be in control of electricity production. Another bloated gov’t agency is not the answer. Quite frankly, when you consider all the benefits received from electricity use, it is a bargain. This is one of the few times I agree with Mills. It isn’t the job of the power companies to reduce your cost of electricity. It is their job to produce it and at a competitive price which they do quite well.
I’m from the government & I’m here to help…. nine terrifying words
Maine has very high electricity costs which hurts commerce and residents alike – but making electric utilities part of the state will not lower rates or make the grid more reliable; it’s more likely to make rates even higher and line maintenance even worse. Bureaucracy rarely trumps private enterprise and I suspect even quasi control via the Maine PUC drives up costs and inefficiencies. I can’t recall approving of anything else Janet Mills has said or done but in this case – like the blind hog finding an occasional acorn, she’s right.
The socialists in the government are the ones that have been forcing the cost of electricity and delivery of such to keep going up! Forcing companies to buy GREEN energy at much higher price than standard supply and the cost of connecting all these GREEN energy suppliers to the grid has been an expensive endeavor that was passed on to all rate payers. It has been a backroom deal from the start with Seth Berry leading the socialists. Berry is looking for his forever job at citizens expense, when he was in government he never saw a tax he didn’t love. So this is nothing but a bag of crap with a pretty bow on it!