Legislature to again weigh whether clean energy subsidies are helping or harming Maine ratepayers
Republican lawmakers are seeking once again to repeal a utility program that they say is not only unnecessary for achieving climate goals, but is contributing to higher energy costs for Mainers.
'It seems that if we are trying to save the environment, which seems to be my colleagues' on the other side of the aisle's argument, there are better ways to do it,' said Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart (R-Aroostook) at a press conference Tuesday.
Stewart was referring to net energy billing, a utility program designed to encourage customers to develop or participate in small-scale renewable energy projects like solar panels by offering credits to offset their electricity bills. The program's supporters see it as a tool to transition the state to clean energy that has been a scapegoat for rising energy costs. But critics argue that it's already achieved the desired environmental goals and is now just a flawed system driving up bills.
In 2023, Gov. Janet Mills set a goal for Maine to reach 100% clean electricity by 2040. While that largely hinges on the state's ability to develop offshore wind in the Gulf of Maine, a recent report from the Governor's Energy Office showed that most of Maine's clean electricity needs in 2040 can be met with the state's current and planned renewable energy resources. This includes the roughly 800 megawatts of solar, hydropower and wind generated through net energy billing projects.
Net energy billing has been modified multiple times since the program expanded in 2019, but the pros and cons are set to be weighed once again by the Legislature's Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee. A public hearing on two proposals to repeal net energy billing was slated for Thursday but postponed due to inclement weather.
The cost of solar: rate increases, political feuds and the long-term outlook
Stewart sponsored one of the bills, LD 257, while Sen. Stacey Guerin (R-Penobscot) put forth LD 32. Both seek to repeal the laws giving the Public Utilities Commission the authority to establish a net energy billing program, as well as certain related tax exemptions. It also prohibits the commission from adopting rules that would require a utility company to allow customers to participate in net energy billing.
Proponents of net energy billing often highlight how the program has led to more rooftop solar and other small scale projects while its benefits and their associated savings aren't spelled out on people's power bills. However, the bills' sponsors and many of their Republican colleagues say it has only shifted costs to low-income households and driven up energy prices, even claiming it has forced businesses to close.
Republicans have also said Democrats are to blame for utility rate increases, arguing that the law passed by their party's majority leaves ratepayers subsidizing the clean energy transition. But there are other factors driving up electricity prices. customers have also been picking up the tab for power restoration efforts after extreme weather events and the spike in natural gas prices from global events such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Information from the Governor's Energy Office underscored the role natural gas plays in the recent volatility of electricity prices. Since half of all electricity used in New England is generated using natural gas, it is the primary driver of the market price, according to the office.
Net energy billing, or Maine's version of net metering, had been the target of former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who vetoed several legislative efforts to incentivize the proliferation of cleaner energy. It was expanded in 2019 under Mills so that customers can use renewable generators located outside of their property but within the same utility service territory, such as a community solar project. Legislation passed two years later added a goal of 750 megawatts of distributed generation through net energy billing.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
There are two programs within net energy billing. First is the kilowatt hour program, which is open to all customers and provides kilowatt hour credits on a participating customers' bill if they install renewable energy generators such as solar panels on their house or join a community solar project, where customers sign up with the owner of the solar farm to receive a portion of the credits. The credits expire after 12 months.
The tariff rate program for nonresidential customers provides dollar credits for those who use their own projects or share in someone else's. The Public Utilities Commission sets an annual rate for the credits, which also expire after 12 months, depending on the customer's size and utility provider.
Lindsay Bourgoine, director of policy and government affairs for Revision Energy, explained that the system provides a mechanism to compensate those who generate their own energy, which gets fed back into the grid.
In a presentation to the energy committee last month, the Public Utilities Commission shared that the net energy billing program has about $130 million in costs, but $160 million in direct or non-monetized benefits. Net energy billing projects sometimes pay for grid upgrades or help reduce the load on the grid during peak hours, which can help avoid costs for other customers.
During the Tuesday press conference, Guerin argued that net energy billing, sometimes referred to as NEB, shifts the cost of developing renewable energy sources onto the customers who don't even use it.
'The cost increases with NEB disproportionately hurt low-income households who can't afford solar panels,' Guerin said, speaking to the fact that the funds for the credits comes from payments made by other utility customers. 'They are subsidizing the cost of wealthier homeowners while paying the sixth highest rates in the nation.'
A report from the citizen-led Electric Ratepayer Advisory Council at the end of last year showed that about 100,000 households in the state are struggling to pay their energy bills with electricity rates in Maine twice the national average.
Additionally, Stewart said that if the goal of the program was to incentivize solar, Maine has done that, so it doesn't 'need to pay for this failed program year after year.'
The two branches of the net energy billing program have more than 110,000 participants and have created nearly 1,200 megawatts in total operational capacity, which is enough to power more than 200,000 homes, according to a recent presentation by the Public Utilities Commission to the energy committee.
A cost and benefit analysis commissioned by the PUC released in April 2023 showed that net energy billing could cost Maine ratepayers $220 million per year starting in 2025. However, that same report also found that the economic benefits of net energy billing solar outweigh the costs of the program. Specifically, the analysis found that for every dollar spent on the program, ratepayers received $1.29 in benefits.
Net energy billing accounts for 4% or roughly $7 of a person's energy bill, according to testimony submitted by the Natural Resources Council of Maine in opposition to the bills.
And while the program's costs are part of a line item on a household's power bill, the benefits aren't, said Jack Shapiro, climate and clean energy director for the NRCM. Those benefits could include more clean energy, reduced demand for fossil fuels, less reliance on the regional grid and other downstream savings.
Stewart said there is a right way and a wrong way to do renewable energy and Maine happens to have 'the worst model in the country for how to do renewables.'
Instead, he would like the state to explore other options that he said wouldn't impact ratepayers as directly. Specifically, he'd like to see the Public Utilities Commission leverage more competitive bidding to bring down costs. Also, rather than prioritize solar and wind development, Stewart said hydro and nuclear power could be better options because they have more opportunity for competitive rates.
Per the current net energy billing statute, the Public Utilities Commission annually establishes the rates that determine how much of a credit a customer receives under the tariff rate program.
However, Shapiro said the proposed legislation doesn't take into account the ramifications of repealing net energy billing for the other 110,000-plus participants who use it, including schools that invested in installing large solar arrays. He argues that repealing the program won't have the cost-saving benefits Republicans say it will.
If net energy billing were to be repealed, he said, the question becomes, 'What comes next?'
Bourgoine with Revision Energy said if the program were eliminated those customers 'would overnight be left without a way to be fairly compensated for the energy they produce.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democratic governors face a school-choice reckoning: Kids or unions?
Republicans in Congress achieved a historic breakthrough last month — and Democratic governors should jump at the chance to take advantage of it. It's the first-ever nationwide school choice program, included as part of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The program aims to give every child in America a shot at a better future by funding private- and parochial-school scholarships through a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit. Advertisement But each state's governor has to choose to join it — and nowhere is the need more urgent than in New York, where Gov. Kathy Hochul has a golden opportunity to make good on her own words. In 2022, in her gubernatorial debate with GOP nominee Lee Zeldin, Hochul said she supported lifting New York's charter school cap. But in the years since, she's let the leftist state Legislature handcuff charter expansion, leaving too many poor kids stuck in a one-size-fits-all government school monopoly that's failing them spectacularly. Advertisement Empire State families are demanding more choices to escape from failing district schools. Tens of thousands of kids are on charter-school waitlists in New York City — and 78% of New York parents support Education Savings Accounts like the school choice initiative passed by Congress. New York spent about $37,000 per student in 2023 — 66% higher than the state's average private-school tuition — yet only 13% of NYC's black 8th graders are proficient in math. Statewide, inflation-adjusted per-student spending has skyrocketed 209% since 1970. Have outcomes gotten 209% better? Advertisement Of course not: Test scores have stagnated or declined, proving that throwing more money at the problem without competition is a fool's errand. But now Hochul can't blame the Democrat-controlled state Legislature as an excuse to keep poor kids from accessing better schools, whether charter, private or religious. The new federal school-choice program puts the decision squarely in her hands, and in the hands of her fellow governors. Advertisement Other states' Democratic leaders are showing signs of cracking under the pressure of common sense. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro's team has said he's considering opting in to the federal program. Even more encouraging is North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, who vetoed a bill passed by the state's GOP-controlled legislature demanding he sign on to the program — calling the bill 'unnecessary,' since he 'intend[s] to opt North Carolina in.' Stein's veto message explicitly stated that 'school choice is good for students and parents,' and pledged to allow North Carolina's public-school students access to the funding. Stein's stance could encourage other Democratic governors to jump on the bandwagon. Speaking of which, California's Gov. Gavin Newsom should opt in, too. He sent his own kids to private school, and attended one himself in his early years. It's hypocritical to oppose school choice for other families while enjoying it for your own. Advertisement What makes the new federal program so compelling — even for Democratic governors beholden to teachers' unions — is a built-in incentive that's impossible to ignore. If states don't opt in, their constituents — whether they know it or not — will be subsidizing scholarships for families in the red states that are already rushing to sign on. All American families and taxpaying individuals can donate to K-12 scholarship-granting organizations and receive a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit in exchange, even if their state doesn't join up. Advertisement All the governors can decide is whether kids in their state can access those scholarships. Opting out means shooting your state in the foot: Your taxpayers' donations will flow to other states' kids, leaving your own students behind. The ongoing crisis in our schools amplifies the urgency. Last week a new FBI report revealed 1.3 million crimes committed at schools from 2020 to 2024, including about 540,000 physical assaults. Advertisement The statistics prove what parents already know: Too many kids are getting beaten, bullied and traumatized in environments that should be safe havens for learning. Democratic governors can no longer do the bidding of teachers' unions by locking children in failing schools infested with violence. The unions' iron grip has protected mediocrity and danger for too long. School choice breaks that stranglehold, giving parents the power to vote with their feet and demand better. Trump's bill puts children first and champions freedom, opportunity and accountability in education. Advertisement It's time for Hochul and her peers to free our kids from the public school monopoly by helping families find better education opportunities. If she doesn't, she risks cementing a legacy of statewide failure and decline. Corey DeAngelis is a senior fellow at the American Culture Project and a visiting fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research.


The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's GOP allies warn against Ukraine entanglement
President Trump's Republican allies are putting pressure on him not to entangle the U.S. militarily in Ukraine after he signaled an openness to helping craft security guarantees for the embattled nation in its war against Russian aggression. Trump and the White House on Tuesday insisted the U.S. would not put boots on the ground in Ukraine, but floated the idea of providing air support using U.S. pilots and warplanes. That came after a meeting on Monday at the White House with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and seven other European leaders, during which they discussed security guarantees for Kyiv in lieu of allowing it into NATO, a red line for Russian President Vladimir Putin. While the summit resulted in few specifics about what those security guarantees would entail, at one point a reporter asked Trump if the U.S. would send troops to Ukraine. Trump didn't answer directly but said the U.S. would 'help them out.' That, combined with special envoy Steve Witkoff saying the U.S. could participate in ' Article 5-like protections ' for Ukraine, has set off alarm bells for some of Trump's 'America First' supporters. Top allies are warning him not to go too far, citing a key MAGA tenet of not getting involved in any lengthy conflicts or 'forever wars.' 'I'd have to look at what the responsibilities would be. We don't want another war,' Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday. 'People in this country, they can't fathom that after 20 years of war over in the Middle East and then getting into another. I know the president's not into that, but we don't want anything to happen in terms of having to fight and lose more lives.' When asked how big of an ask that would be to constituents and voters, the Alabama senator — a top MAGA supporter — was blunt. 'It would be an impossible sell,' said Tuberville, who is currently running to become governor of his home state. 'The American people aren't going to go for it, I'm just going to tell you that right now. The people in Alabama would be definitely against it. … I know President Trump's trying to do the right thing, but people in Europe have to take responsibility for this.' 'President Trump enjoys taking over and trying to help, but he knows he can only go so far with all this. … [He's] trying to do what's right for us,' Tuberville added. 'But there's no appetite for war or us getting involved with this anyway with troops on the ground that would actually fight. We're talking about security, which might be different.' Pressed during a phone interview with 'Fox & Friends' Tuesday morning about any 'assurances' he could make that there will not be any U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine as part of any deal, Trump sought to quell any eruption by supporters. 'Well, you have my assurance, and I'm president,' he said, suggesting that France, Germany, and Great Britain might do so instead. Trump's latest remarks came a day after marathon meetings with the European cohort, during which Zelensky specifically referenced progress towards a deal on security guarantees. They are among the most prominent Ukrainian demands for any deal that may include ceding territory to the Russians. Zelensky also noted that as part of a potential security guarantee agreement, Kyiv would purchase $90 billion in American weapons, including sophisticated systems for air-defense support and war planes. The U.S. would buy Ukrainian drones in return. Some of Trump's top supporters almost immediately warned him against getting involved militarily. 'Right now, it's all predicated on American cash, American arms, and now they're going to need American involvement,' former White House strategist and conservative firebrand Steve Bannon said on his radio show Monday, adding that European leaders and Senate GOP hawks cannot be trusted on this issue. Bannon said the group is 'trying to get America sucked into a deep involvement' in the region. 'These are tripwires,' Bannon said. 'This is where things go from regional conflicts to world wars.' The battle also marks the latest one where Trump has had to straddle the concerns of key MAGA figures. He has had to manage similar situations in Iran after the U.S. struck against their nuclear capabilities and backed Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza. Jack Posobiec, a right-wing activist and editor at Human Events, also pressed White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt about the questions about the security guarantees being discussed. 'The president understands the security guarantees are crucially important to ensure a lasting peace,' Leavitt said at Tuesday's press briefing. 'He has directed his national security team to coordinate with our friends in Europe, and also to continue to cooperate and discuss these matters with Ukraine and Russia as well.' The Ukrainians are seeking security guarantees akin to those afforded to NATO nations via Article 5, which Witkoff, Trump's envoy to the Middle East and Ukraine, floated over the weekend. That would potentially draw the U.S. into a larger conflict if Moscow attacked the peacekeeping effort. Russia has vociferously objected to security guarantees even though Trump indicated recently that Putin would be open to the idea of a peacekeeping force by NATO nations in eastern Ukraine. 'We reiterate our longstanding position of unequivocally rejecting any scenarios involving the deployment of NATO military contingents in Ukraine, as this risks uncontrollable escalation with unpredictable consequences,' said Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry. Trump and European leaders are expected to continue discussion in the coming days in a bid to keep up the momentum. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is set to head up a U.S.-European-Ukrainian commission to draft a proposal of potential security guarantees as part of a final accord, and Trump is seeking a meeting with both Putin and Zelensky.


Bloomberg
26 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's ‘Chinese Model' Is Making the US a Corporate Stakeholder
Donald Trump may be the leader of the Republican Party, but when it comes to the free market—the very economic foundation of the modern GOP—he appears to be headed in the opposite direction of long-held doctrine. Trump is now directly intervening in corporate matters, ostensibly to achieve his economic and foreign policy goals. This includes demanding a government cut of AI chip sales to China from Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices. He's also said to be in talks to grab a 10% stake in the beleaguered chipmaker Intel. And last month, the Pentagon snapped up a $400 million preferred equity stake in a rare earth mining company.