LD 838 Establishing the Maine Clean Energy Authority

Giving all encompassing authority to an unelected body

The language for a bill just reached my email box yesterday afternoon. This is quite a lengthy post, but so very important. Please read through it and share with others.

A New Energy Authority with Big Powers: What Mainers Should Know—and Why It Matters Now

A bill before the Legislature, LD 838, would create a new entity called the Maine Clean Energy Authority. Its stated purpose is to plan, finance, and coordinate major energy and transmission infrastructure projects across the state. While improving energy reliability and controlling costs are goals most Mainers support, the structure and powers granted in this proposal raise serious questions that deserve public scrutiny before it moves forward.

Big government programs rarely fail because of bad intentions. They fail because of weak oversight, open-ended spending, and decisions made too far from the people affected by them.

1. A powerful entity with limited oversight

The proposed Authority would be a “public instrument,” but explicitly not a state agency and not subject to administrative control by existing departments. In practice, that means sweeping authority with fewer checks and balances than typical state bodies. While audits and annual reports are required, they occur after decisions are made. There is limited ability for elected officials—or citizens—to intervene if priorities drift, costs rise, or projects underperform.

This structure should prompt questions: Who ultimately answers to the public when things go wrong?

2. Unlimited bonding authority and long-term financial risk —without voter approval

The Authority would be allowed to issue unlimited revenue and municipal bonds, with no statutory cap on debt and no requirement for voter approval. These bonds are tax-exempt and marketed as low-risk, but history shows that when large infrastructure projects fail to deliver expected returns, the financial burden often lands on ratepayers and taxpayers.

This approach shifts risk away from developers and onto the public—without clear limits or guarantees of savings.

Prudent stewardship demands clear guardrails, defined limits, and direct accountability for financial decisions of this scale.

3. Eminent domain and local impact

The bill grants the Authority the power to acquire land—including through eminent domain—to establish transmission corridors deemed to be of “statewide significance.”

While procedural protections are referenced, the core decision-making authority rests with the Authority, not local communities. Property owners, farmers, and small towns could find themselves with little practical recourse once a corridor is designated.

Infrastructure should serve the public interest—but it should not come at the expense of local control or private property rights without the highest level of justification and restraint.

4. Governance tilted toward institutional interests

The seven-member board includes representatives of utilities and organized labor, along with two at-large public members. Missing are dedicated seats for ratepayers, municipalities, small businesses, or rural landowners.

When the same institutions that stand to benefit from large-scale infrastructure projects help govern the entity funding them, the risk of misaligned incentives increases.

Sound governance requires balance—not concentration of influence.

5. Broad mission, blurred priorities

The Authority can fund transmission, storage, generation, electrification, and more. That breadth may sound efficient, but it also blurs accountability. When everything is a priority, it becomes harder to evaluate whether projects truly minimize costs, protect communities, or deliver promised benefits.

Without clear priorities and benchmarks, there is a real risk of mission creep—more projects, more debt, and higher long-term costs with limited evidence of savings.

---

What you can do:

This bill is not simply about clean energy—it’s about how power is exercised, how risk is shared, and who gets a seat at the table.

Mainers across the political spectrum should urge legislators to:

• Establish clear limits on borrowing and financial exposure

• Strengthen legislative oversight before—not just after—decisions are made

• Protect property rights and local decision-making authority

• Broaden board representation to include ratepayers and communities

• Require proven cost savings and performance benchmarks

Energy infrastructure matters. So does fiscal discipline, transparency, and respect for local communities. Now is the moment to slow down, ask hard questions, and shape a policy that works for all Mainers—not just the most powerful players.

Contact your legislators. Attend hearings. Ask for amendments. Once authority is granted, it is rarely pulled back. Good policy is built in the open—and it’s strongest when citizens speak up.

The bill is scheduled for a public hearing on Tuesday, January 20 at 1:00 pm in the Energy, Utilities, Technology Committee Room 211. Read the current language for LD 838 here:

Concept Draft Amendment 838 01

169KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download