An Electrifying Debate!
On Monday evening, Building Bridges had the pleasure of hosting a moderated session on the proposed Maine Energy Corridor featuring two fantastic speakers: Ben Dudley, Director of Mainers for Clean Energy Jobs, and Sandra Howard, Director of Say NO to NECEC and Principal Officer of No CMP Corridor PAC.
One of the things that I really appreciate about Building Bridges is how very different - but equally impassioned - positions can be shared in a respectful way. That’s something we need to do more often, and this session was a great start for the group’s efforts to facilitate deeper understanding and constructive conversations on issues that matter deeply to Mainers of all political stripes.
I’ll be honest that I came to the session with one perspective, and I left asking questions and wanting to learn more, which was a typical outcome in our small-group breakout sessions. I may not change my original position, but I know that the issue isn’t as cut-and-dried as I thought...and as a result of this session, I better understand the perspectives of both “sides”, each of which is advancing important issues for all of us to consider.
We hope you’ll take a few moments to watch the opening statements and Q&A with Ben and Sandra and take an opportunity to learn more about the arguments for and against the Energy Corridor. The prepared remarks for both speakers follow.
Sandra Howard’s Remarks AGAINST the Energy Corridor
Hello everyone, thank you so much for inviting me to join you here today. I really appreciate the mission of Building Bridges to seek common ground.
Three years ago, opposition to CMP’s proposed corridor sprouted from a small group of Registered Maine raft guides up in The Forks. We were concerned about the detrimental impacts this project would have on wildlife, their habitat, and the recreation tourism industry. Since then, we have learned that the negative impacts would be much broader. I’m proud to serve No CMP Corridor & Say NO to NECEC as an unpaid volunteer representing more than 10,000 concerned members. Our group is non-partisan, represents all ages, and people from all across Maine and beyond, who passionately do not want Maine to become an extension cord for Massachusetts.
Recently, radio host Mike Violette said, QUOTE “Talk about a rainbow political coalition. You’ve got right wing lunatics like me, you’ve got conservation groups, you’ve got business owners. It’s a real grassroots effort here. Maybe the greatest mix of different groups of people in the history of Maine politics.” END QUOTE. Mike was absolutely right. During a time when there seems to be so much to disagree about, opposition to CMP’s destructive and UNNECESSARY for-profit corridor has truly brought Mainers across the political spectrum together because, no matter how you approach this project, it’s a bad deal for Maine.
Before I get into why you should oppose this project by voting YES to REJECT the corridor at the ballot box this November, I’ll first give you some history. A number of years ago, Massachusetts passed a law requiring ratepayers to offset carbon emissions by bringing new clean energy onto the grid to power the state. In response to the RFP, 45 projects were submitted, and the Northern Pass was selected to bring Hydro from Quebec to Massachusetts through New Hampshire. Upon evaluation, New Hampshire regulators found that “no actual greenhouse gas emission reductions would be realized” and they rightfully rejected the project.
That left Massachusetts with 44 other projects to select from, including a fully-permitted option through Vermont that had no public opposition because it would be buried underground, minimizing visual and environmental impacts.
But, unfortunately for Maine, it’s cheaper to slash through the last great undeveloped forest east of the Mississippi River, fragmenting western Maine with a clear cut that will never grow back, and inflicting irreparable environmental and economic damage, so CMP’s NECEC project won the bid.
In addition, the benefits package that was negotiated here in Maine is worth $100 million less than Vermont’s. Cost savings on electricity for Mainers will be worth only pennies per month while CMP, the lowest rated and least trusted utility in the country makes $5 million per month and Hydro-Quebec, owned 100 percent by a foreign government, makes $41 million per month.
In this scenario, everybody wins, except for Maine, which is why more than 80,000 Mainers signed a petition last winter to initiate a referendum on this issue in the fall. As our partner, Tom Saviello recently said, at this point, CMP is missing the most important approval of all, which is approval of the people of Maine. We simply can’t trust CMP with a project of this magnitude and one that has not been proven to help us in our effort to fight GLOBAL climate change. NECEC would prioritize the needs for Massachusetts ratepayers and would perpetuate CMP’s poor reliability and low customer service quality for Maine ratepayers. Thanks and I’m happy to answer any questions about the many reasons to oppose the CMP corridor.
Ben Dudley’s Remarks FOR the Energy Corridor
Thank you for inviting me. I love your mission and it's in that spirit that I want to talk about the Clean Energy Connect.
CONTEXT
We need to start thinking-through what achieving carbon neutrality actually entails. Here in New England, over the next 30 years, the plants that generate almost 71% (1) of our electricity will retire: some are just old and others produce too much carbon pollution. (2)
On top of this, we're going to be consuming lots more electricity because of exciting shifts to electric vehicles, electric heat and electrified industry.
The Maine Climate Council has indicated that our electricity consumption could double or triple by mid-century. (3)
This all means that 86% of the electricity we'll need has to come from infrastructure that doesn't exist today. (4)
The necessary buildout is going to require reasonable tradeoffs to achieve our goal of eliminating GHG pollution. But, as President Biden says, it's also a huge investment in good jobs. (5)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The Clean Energy Connect is part of that buildout. It is a 145-mile transmission line from our western border with Québec to Lewiston. Ninety-two miles of it is sited alongside an existing transmission line; 53 miles of it are through what the Maine Department of Environmental Protection describes as "intensively managed commercial timberland." (6)
The line will deliver 1,200 megawatts of clean hydroelectricity to Maine & New England. To understand scale, if you were to place a 20'x20' solar panel on the roof of every residential structure in Maine, you'd generate less than half the electricity of the Clean Energy Connect, at 5 or 6 times the cost. (7)
The project has all its state and federal permits, after years of review by the Maine Public Utilities Commission, Land Use Planning Commission, Department of Environmental Protection, the Army Corps and U.S., Department of Energy. . . then after appeals to the Maine Supreme Court and the Federal First Circuit. Every substantive argument made by opponents has been thoughtfully considered and addressed by regulators. (8)
BOTTOM LINE
The story of the Clean Energy Connect is about the struggle between energy interests to adapt to the new reality. Some see advantage in the change (Clean Energy Connect builders Avangrid/Hydro-Québec) and some see disadvantage (fossil fuel generators NextEra/Calpine/Vistra).
Avangrid/Hydro-Québec are acting in response to public policy cues that were designed to spur private investment in the public interest: GHG reduction and energy security. (9) And the Clean Energy Connect will annually reduce carbon emissions by 3 million tons, says the Maine PUC. (10)
Of the $2.5 million spent by project opponents to launch a referendum this fall, 99% came from the fossil fuel interests (11) who, in 2019, collectively discharged more than 500,000 tons of carbon into Maine's atmosphere, says the Maine DEP. (12)
In whose interest is that?
1 This is a correction from my spoken comments where I said 75%.
2 ISO-New England, 2019 Net Energy and Peak Load by Source
3 Maine Climate Council - Energy Working Group, Co-Chair Cover Letter, June 5, 2020, p.2
4 NOTE: This assumes 240 terawatt hours of annual load (double the New England load in 2019) with only 34 terawatt hours of existing supply that is neither fossil fuel nor nuclear.
5 Remarks by President Biden in Address to a Joint Session of Congress, April 28, 2021, "The American Jobs Plan will create jobs that will lay thousands of miles of transmission lines needed to build a resilient and fully clean grid."
6 Maine DEP, Findings of Fact and Order, May 11, 2020, p.54
7 Data are from National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) unless noted otherwise:
Using 5.0- kW (DC) fixed tilt (25°), roof-mounted system as the model (each panel requiring about 400 square feet for mounting)
Yielding 43,800 kWh annual capacity @ 15% capacity factor (based on NREL's Chicago example) = 6.8MWh
According to estimates based on data supplied by the Maine State Housing Authority, there are approximately 639,000 housing structures in Maine
Yielding 4.3 TWh of power (639,000 x 6.8 MWh), or 41% of the capacity of the Clean Energy Connect
At a cost of $5.75 billion ($9,000 x 639,000)
8 The relevant permit orders are available on Mainers for Clean Energy Jobs' online library.
9 The 291st General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Chapter 188: An Act to Promote EnergyDiversity
10 Maine PUC Order, Docket No. 2017- 00232, May 3, 2019, p.72
11 Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, public filings by Mainers for Local Power PAC
12 Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Air Emissions Inventory Data, 2019 GHG Summary