Maine Legislature advances bill to tweak provisions of 2021 transmission line referendum
Lawmakers on the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee voted to advance a bill that would modify the law born out of a 2021 referendum question requiring the Maine Legislature to approve any new high-impact transmission lines.
The committee voted 7-4, along party lines of those present, to recommend the passage of LD 810 with some small changes.
The legislation is meant to clarify that when the Legislature asks for a new line to be developed, that line should not come back to the Legislature for approval after the review process performed by the Public Utilities Commission.
Democrats who were present for the vote supported the bill from Rep. Chris Kessler (D-South Portland), while Republicans voiced concerns about repealing the rule.
'This is appropriate and good public policy to ensure that we are having at least a lower cost of building transmission in the state and ultimately with the goal of reducing costs for ratepayers but not abdicating our responsibility for a thorough review of these projects,' Kessler said, noting that current statute could lead to developers sinking millions of dollars into a project that could ultimately be voted down by lawmakers.
'Not good public policy': Bill would roll back some provisions of 2021 transmission line referendum
In 2021, Maine voters approved a ballot question to increase legislative oversight on new transmission lines in a campaign that drew passionate grassroots support and over $60 million in opposition spending fueled mostly by international energy companies.
The question was largely seen as a vehicle to stop the controversial 145-mile transmission line through western Maine known as New England Clean Energy Connect. Despite the political and legal hurdles, Central Maine Power's corridor project is expected to be completed later this year.
Having worked closely on the 2021 referendum, Sen. Nicole Grohoski (D-Hancock) said the intention was to give the public a way to debate the merits of a line being proposed by an entity other than the Legislature. Given that, she feels LD 810 provides a 'really helpful clarification of the intent of the referendum.'
She went on to say that this is an 'opportunity to make it crystal clear that a line that's authorized by the Legislature is different than a line that's being proposed by a for-profit entity.'
Rep. Steven Foster (R-Dexter) said he isn't comfortable repealing it because, as it stands, the rule allows those who live in the path of these projects and could face eminent domain takings to appear before the Legislature, rather than receive notification by mail.
'It gives us one more chance to debate, discuss and either approve or not said line,' Foster said.
Before casting a vote against, Sen. Matt Harrington (R-York) said he was 'highly conflicted' about the bill. While he believes businesses that want to invest large sums of money in Maine should not have to come before 'this highly emotional group of people we call the Maine Legislature anymore than possible,' he acknowledged that more often, the general public doesn't have concerns about such projects until after the route is determined, which normally comes after preemptive legislative approval.
Before the committee voted, Kessler proposed amending the bill to insert the word 'statutory' to clarify that transmission lines proposed by agencies with the statutory authority to do so will be deemed to have the necessary legislative approval.
The legislative analyst said she could come back to the committee with further language suggestions to better define when an agency has that sort of authority.
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
Axios
10 minutes ago
- Axios
How Trump is making pot a MAGA issue
President Trump is opening the door to reclassifying marijuana, potentially allowing the GOP to claim another health issue that's long been associated with Democrats. Why it matters: The administration has already flipped the political script when it comes to banning food dyes, calling for an end to animal lab testing and embracing psychedelics for mental health. Rescheduling marijuana could be a big step toward establishing an interstate cannabis trade — and turning a policy long sought by congressional Democrats and promoted by the Biden administration into reality. Driving the news: Trump brought up the subject during a recent event with donors at his Bedminster, New Jersey, country club after marijuana companies contributed millions of dollars to his political organizations, the Wall Street Journal first reported. While falling short of legalization, designating pot to have medical value and less dangerous than its Schedule I designation would be a major jolt to cannabis companies that run on thin margins, per Axios' Dan Primack. It would allow them to deduct business expenses on their taxes and also reduce restrictions on cannabis research. The industry has mounted"a very powerful PR effort," Kevin Sabet, founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana who served in the White House Office of Drug Control Policy under three administrations, told Axios. "They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars in total to influence the president from Florida onward, whether it's inauguration, whether it's million-dollar-plate fundraisers in New Jersey. They are going all out because they want this tax break." Catch up quick: Polling from the Pew Research Center and others have shown increasing support for marijuana legalization across the political spectrum, with 88% favoring medical or recreational use. "Cannabis has become a less partisan [issue] over time, and this has been accelerated by the proliferation of intoxicating hemp products," Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, told Axios. "Heck, I was just in Indiana where someone could buy THC drinks in grocery stores and bars — I don't even see that here in California." While much of Trump's orbit has been more circumspect about making such a change, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a notable exception, Sabet said. Kennedy supported legalization of marijuana during his presidential campaign and said it could open up more research into risks and benefits, although he has also warned about potential "catastrophic impacts" on users. There's still a big difference between rescheduling a drug and federal legalization, which demonstrates the political winds of change are moving slowly. Multiple state ballot initiatives seeking to legalize recreational pot have failed over the last several years. Trump, like Biden, is a teetotaler, and neither has expressed great enthusiasm for legalization over the years, said Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University. "The way to think about it is some people wanted Biden to legalize. Biden didn't want to do that, so he said, 'Well, I'll suggest rescheduling, which will make some people think that we've made a big change, but it isn't really,'" Caulkins said. Friction point: The rescheduling of marijuana means the government would be officially recognizing its medicinal uses. That's difficult when the quality and consistency of the botanical version of the drug isn't like more conventional pharmaceuticals, Caulkins said. The move also would transfer cannabis to the purview of the Food and Drug Administration, which could create headaches for the agency. The FDA would be "between a rock and a hard place," Caulkins said. "They either have to ignore their own rules and regulations and say, we're just going to let the cannabis happen without the usual standards for medicine, or we're going to bite the bullet and crack down on a multibillion-dollar industry that's been operating for years now." The big picture: A rescheduling would be further evidence of the MAGA world's ability to take the reins on issues once associated with the progressive movement. "For the left, it's been much more about sort of social justice and righting the wrongs of the drug war," Sabet said. On the other hand: "You have part of the MAGA wing that has embraced this," he said. "It's about business, it's about money." Yes, but: This is already stirring up some disagreement among Trump's base. "I hope this doesn't happen," Turning Point USA founder and key MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk posted on X. "Everything already smells like weed, which is ridiculous. Let's make it harder to ruin public spaces, not easier." Relaxing marijuana rules also is stirring concern among state GOP lawmakers in states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Even administration officials such as FDA commissioner Marty Makary have posted warnings about health risks from cannabis use. Reality check: Trump was vague on the timing of any move when he confirmed the WSJ's reporting on Monday, saying: "We're only looking at that. It's early."
Fox News
11 minutes ago
- Fox News
Can America's Economic Data Be Trusted?
On Tuesday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released last month's Consumer Price Index, showing that prices barely rose in July. Economists had been forecasting the CPI rising by 0.2%; however, thanks to an overall drop in energy prices, the report suggests inflation appears to have plateaued. This will only bolster President Trump's calls on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates. Former Trump advisor and co-founder of Unleash Prosperity, Stephen Moore, joins to break down the positive inflation news and the future of economic data in the U.S. President Trump is reportedly weighing the decision to reschedule marijuana under federal law, possibly reclassifying it as a less dangerous drug. The methods the Trump administration may take to enact this change are varied, with some wondering whether the President will act directly or leave it to his federal agencies to handle. Former Arkansas Governor and Drug Enforcement Administration chief Asa Hutchinson joins to discuss the merits of medical marijuana, risks of drug abuse, and what role the DEA would play in the rescheduling process. Plus, commentary from the president of Exit Stage Left Advisors, Ted Jenkin. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
NBC News
41 minutes ago
- NBC News
How redistricting became the burning hot center of Democratic politics
It was once an issue that made voters' eyes glaze over. But in the last several weeks, the once-arcane subject of redistricting — underpinned by Texas Democrats' extraordinary exodus from their state to block Republican plans to redraw maps — has transformed into the burning hot center of Democratic politics. Potential 2028 White House candidates have sought to put themselves at the center of the fight against what they call a GOP power grab in Texas. So, too, have a bevy of Democratic governors, members of Congress and candidates for office across the country. Far from the days of old for a party mocked for sending 'strongly worded letters' while Republicans steamrolled them, Democrats are now firing their own flamethrowers. It's precisely what the rank and file want to see from a party they're fed up with and disappointed in, Democrats say. 'There are not that many moments when politics break through to normal people. This is breaking through … because of how ruthless people are seeing Republicans be, and they want to see their Democratic leaders fight just as hard,' said Josh Marcus-Blank, a Democratic consultant who has worked on senatorial and presidential campaigns. 'Any [Democratic] voter thinking about 2028 is mad right now, and they really want Democrats to stand up and fight back.' President Donald Trump elevated the issue to the national stage when he said he wanted Texas to carve up its congressional map to create up to five more Republican districts to protect the party's narrow House majority in the 2026 midterms. While both parties have gerrymandered their states' congressional districts in the past, the move in Texas stands out because it seeks to rip up the state's map mid-decade, rather than after the new census every 10 years. Democrats left the state to deny a quorum in the Texas House and prevent the GOP's plan from moving forward. The move ultimately may only delay the action, as Gov. Greg Abbott has vowed to repeatedly call special sessions until he can push through the new map. But as Abbott moved forward, the heavy hitters of the left moved to get in on the action. Democrats have already gerrymandered his state to the hilt, but Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, used another route into the spotlight. In June, he quietly discussed a way for Texas Democrats to take refuge in his state on the eve of a legislative special session. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to pursue a redraw of his state's congressional maps if Republicans move forward with their plans in Texas. Newsom, however, would need to circumvent an independent commission that controls the redistricting process in California. 'They want to change the game,' Newsom said of Republicans. 'We can act holier than thou. We could sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment.' In another escalation on the issue, Newsom declared Tuesday night that Trump had missed a deadline and so California would be 'historic' and 'end the Trump presidency,' he said in a social media post that mockingly emulated the kind of statement Trump would make. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, declaring, ' We are at war,' also said she would look at ways to counter Texas' plans. Any new map in her state wouldn't take effect until after next year's midterms. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a possible presidential contender, held a live social media forum and posted a video about the issue. 'What it shows is that Republicans believe that they will lose Congress unless they change the maps before the next election,' Buttigieg said. After Texas Republicans first publicly considered redrawing the map mid-decade, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Hawaii Gov. Josh Green took turns teeing off on the issue from the sidelines of the National Governors Association meeting in Colorado in late July. 'My party can't stand by and watch it happen and have the Congress taken away from the people's will, whatever that is. It's completely unethical for Texas to do this — to redistrict. It's an obvious attempt to steal elections,' Green said in an interview. 'If the courts won't stop it, then you're going to have to fight fire with fire.' In Illinois, where a competitive race is underway to replace retiring longtime Sen. Dick Durbin, the leading candidates appeared alongside Texas Democrats at news events. One day, Reps. Robin Kelly and Raja Krishnamoorthi vowed to build a wall against Trump's efforts, and the next, it was Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton. 'Now is our time to stand up and fight. President Trump and Gov. Abbott, we are watching you. In Illinois, we don't sit on the sidelines. In Illinois, we don't take kindly to threats, and in Illinois, we fight back,' Stratton said before a splay of TV cameras last week. 'If Trump and Texas Republicans won't play by the rules, we will look at every option available to stop their extreme power grab, and nothing will be off the table.' Andrew O'Neill, the national advocacy director for the progressive grassroots group Indivisible, referred to some of the Democrats' remarks and actions as 'productive ambition.' 'Democratic leadership amongst Democratic voters — it's in the toilet right now. The Democratic base is furious with the state of their party,' O'Neill said. He added that any Democrats hoping to draw attention on the national stage must show the base they know how to take off the gloves. 'If you take the sort of quiet-adult-in-the-room, 'we're just going to be responsible' approach, nobody pays attention to you, and nobody hears your message,' O'Neill said. 'So it's all well and good that you put out a boring press release that says you believe in democracy and fair maps, but if you're not actually taking the fight to Republicans and drawing that strategic conflict, in the attention economy we currently live with, nobody's going to hear you.' Hosting Texas Democratic lawmakers in Illinois has given Pritzker a platform to play protector-in-chief, vowing to stand in the way of Trump and Texas officials who authorized civil arrest warrants. 'There's no federal law that would allow the FBI to arrest anybody that's here visiting our state,' Pritzker said Sunday on NBC News' 'Meet the Press.' 'So it's a lot of grandstanding. That's what this is all about.' Meanwhile, Newsom and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the former House speaker, stood with a half-dozen Texas lawmakers Friday in Sacramento, where Newsom declared California would 'nullify' Texas Republicans' map if they moved forward. There are some signs Democrats' actions are gaining traction. For instance, a new Siena College poll found that Hochul's job approval and favorability ratings have ticked up since June as she has been front and center in the redistricting debate. Texas state Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., who leads the Democratic Hispanic Caucus and is among those in Illinois sitting out the special session, said he has been emboldened by the public's response. 'People have reached out to me that I've never heard from,' he said. Romero relayed feedback his brother, a schoolteacher, has received. 'Every day, he says, 'Man, you know, everybody's coming up to me, telling me how proud they are of you and for the fact that they didn't even know what redistricting was and now they know,'" Romero said.
