Latest news with #BillOxford
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Committee backs clean energy credit reform estimated to produce $67M yearly in ratepayer savings
Natural gas meter. (Photo by Bill Oxford/ Getty Images) The legislative committee tasked with wading through the many proposals brought forward this session to address the problems with the state's clean energy credit program is advancing a bill that critics say doesn't go far enough. On Thursday night, the Maine Legislature's Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee voted along party lines with the majority in favor of an amended version of LD 1777. The bill Democrats advanced to the full Legislature asks the Governor's Energy Office to develop a successor program for front-of-the-meter net energy billing projects sometime next year. The Public Utilities Commission would need to approve the plan, but only if the benefits to ratepayers outweighs the costs. Net energy billing is a utility program designed to encourage customers to install or participate in small-scale renewable energy projects like solar panels by offering credits to offset their electricity bills. It was expanded in 2019 so customers can use renewable energy generators located outside of their property but within the same utility service territory, such as a community solar project. Front-of-the-meter projects include community solar projects and those included in the state's current tariff rate program, which is used by nonresidential customers. If LD 1777 is enacted, front-of-the-meter projects would no longer be eligible to participate in net energy billing once the successor program is in place. 'I hope that it will lead to the survival in a sustainable way and, perhaps, in a more economically just way for this really important set of programs and for the value that it has produced, as it certainly has,' said Rep. Sophie Warren (D-Scarborough), the bill's sponsor. While the committee rejected other proposals, including those to repeal net energy billing entirely, it carried over some legislation such as LD 1936 that could serve as vehicles for further tweaks to the program in the next legislative session. As LD 1777 advances to the full Maine House of Representatives and Senate, proponents of solar energy fear these changes could harm the future of the industry. During the committee discussion Thursday, Public Advocate Heather Sanborn said if passed the annual savings for ratepayers statewide over the next 16 years are estimated to be an average of $47 million from proposed changes to the tariff rate program and $20 million from changes to the kilowatt hour program. Currently, the kilowatt hour program is open to all customers and provides kilowatt hour credits on participating customers' bills if they install renewable energy generators such as solar panels or join a community solar project, where customers receive a portion of a solar farm's credits. The credits expire after 12 months. This program, in particular, has come under fire for providing generous incentives to solar farm developers that utility customers are helping pay for. LD 1777 creates a monthly charge for kilowatt hour projects starting January 2026 to offset the associated costs currently passed on to ratepayers. There are 1,000 kilowatts in a megawatt and most community solar projects run between one and five megawatts. As of May 20, Maine has 300 community solar projects with a total capacity of just over 1,000 megawatts, according to the Governor's Energy Office's solar dashboard. The proposal outlines a charge of $4.10 per kilowatt of capacity for projects between three and five megawatts and $1.20 per kilowatt of capacity for projects between one and three megawatts. However, Warren said those may be adjusted to whatever number is necessary to achieve $20 million in ratepayer savings in the first year. 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. However, Warren's legislation establishes new, tiered tariff rates for certain projects starting January 2026. The new rates would vary depending on the project's capacity. Republicans on the energy committee opposed the bill, with multiple of them saying it doesn't go far enough to fix the problems net energy billing has created in the state. Sen. Nicole Grohoski (D-Hancock) agreed, but voted in favor because 'doing nothing would be completely irresponsible,' she said. However, she said that if more needs to be done to modify net energy billing in the future to support Maine people who are struggling to keep up with electricity bills, she vowed to 'be loud' about it — whether she's still in office or not. Similarly, Rep. Chris Kessler (D-South Portland) said he was voting in favor 'with a heavy heart.' Admitting it may make him a 'unicorn,' committee co-chair Sen. Mark Lawrence (D-York) said he has been pleased with net energy billing. Though she was disappointed the committee couldn't come to a unanimous vote, Rep. Valli Geiger (D-Rockland) said her fear would be that the legislation goes too far in potentially deterring solar. She said climate change is an existential threat and renewable energy is the only path forward. Maine's clean energy sector has admitted net energy billing can be improved, but has cautioned lawmakers against retroactive changes to the program that could undermine investor confidence. Many of them were disappointed in the committee's decision to advance LD 1777, which they feel includes 'drastic' concessions for the solar industry, according to a news release after the vote. 'The Legislature today chose to both harm participants retroactively and threaten the future of the industry,' said Eliza Donoghue, executive director of the Maine Renewable Energy Association. 'While the program can certainly be improved, it should not occur at the expense of the people and businesses that invested in good faith for our clean energy future.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Collins, King urge HHS secretary to reverse course on LIHEAP firings
Natural gas meter. (Photo by Bill Oxford/ Getty Images) Following reports that mass firings at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services wiped out the entire staff of the federal low income heating assistance program, Maine's two senators sent a letter to the head of the agency warning of potentially devastating consequences. The Low Income Heating Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is federally funded and provides financial assistance to help lower income households afford energy bills, weatherization, and energy-related home repairs. Republican Susan Collins and independent Angus King, along with 11 of their Senate colleagues, penned a letter to Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday, urging him to 'reverse course on any staffing or funding cuts that would jeopardize the distribution of these funds to our constituents.' While the program remains in effect, its roughly 20 federal staffers were reportedly among the approximately 10,000 HHS workers terminated this week as part of a mass layoff to make the agency 'more responsive and efficient.' The senators wrote that, if true, the terminations 'will undermine the HHS's ability to deliver this critical funding to low-income seniors and families.' In addition, they noted that local community action programs that help enroll qualified residents could also be weakened by cuts undertaken by HHS and billionaire advisor Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Maine has seen a sizable increase in applications for LIHEAP in recent years, jumping from 45,000 in 2019 to 70,000 in the past year, according to the Maine State Housing Authority. For fiscal year 2025, Maine was awarded about $37.6 million in LIHEAP funds with an additional $1.4 million for the Wabanaki Nations, according to Collins' office. In the letter, the senators noted that states 'are expecting HHS to release nearly $400 million in FY25 funding later this month. Any delay in providing this funding will set back efforts to provide summer cooling grants, weatherize low-income homes, and plan for the next winter heating season.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Proposed drug-induced homicide laws would take the state back to failed policies of the past
Lawmakers in Annapolis are considering bills that would add additional penalties for anyone who distributes fentanyl or heroin that leads to the user's death or serious injury. (Stock photo by Bill Oxford via Getty Images) Maryland, like much of the country, has been ravaged by the opioid epidemic. Over 20,000 Marylanders lost their lives to overdose over the last decade, with the worst years occurring during the pandemic and its aftermath. The grief within families and communities is enormous, and people are demanding action. New drug-induced homicide (DIH) laws like Senate Bill 604 and House Bill 1398, which add decades of prison time to drug distribution charges, are not the answer. These types of bills are often called drug-induced homicide (DIH), although in Maryland's case they do not technically make the crime a homicide, but instead add an enhanced penalty in the event heroin or fentanyl distribution that leads to death or serious bodily injury. We have tried many times before to deal with the intractable problems of addiction by imposing longer and longer prison sentences, but it has never worked. These laws may be well-intentioned, but they will not help prevent the overdose of our loved ones. I understand the appeal of DIH laws. I lost my son to a drug overdose in 2010 and experienced unbelievable grief, anger and pain. I wanted to put my finger on the cause of my son's death, to understand why this tragedy happened. And I wanted someone to blame. The premise behind DIH laws offered a simple and satisfying perspective: That someone else was responsible for my son's death and must be held accountable to prevent more tragedy. This made sense to me, and I supported it. I also felt called to help prevent overdose in other ways, however, and as I worked to support those struggling with addiction, I learned that things are not that simple. Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at editor@ We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates. Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines. Views of writers are their own. My son's drug supplier was one of the dealers that the disgraced and disbanded Baltimore City Gun Trace Task Force protected. He went to federal prison in 2018, but his incarceration did nothing to stop or slow drug overdoses in and around Baltimore. New DIH laws and even longer prison sentences would not prevent overdose, discourage drug dealing or reduce the prevalence of fentanyl, either. While it's true that people who distribute heroin and fentanyl are engaging in criminal behavior, charging them with murder is a gross overreach. Maryland already has laws in place to deal with drug dealers. Indeed, the state passed legislation in 2017 to impose longer sentences on anyone convicted of distributing fentanyl. This law increased the maximum penalty to 30 years in prison for the dealers who are contributing to the overdose crisis. There is simply no need to introduce yet another law. Moreover, DIH laws could make the overdose problem worse by undermining the Maryland Good Samaritan law that provides important protections to those who report overdoses in good faith. It's a crucial safeguard designed to encourage people to report overdoses without fear of legal repercussions. I recently met with a group of women from Halo Recovery in Baltimore who shared a story on how the Good Samaritan law saved a life. With tears streaming down her face, one of the women described how she was terrified of calling for help when a family member overdosed, but she did call. The police showed up before EMS and assured her that they were not going to arrest either of them. The next day, the woman and family member entered treatment. If DIH laws are enacted, this protection and the lives it saves could be significantly weakened. Stories of people being charged under DIH laws for overdose deaths will inevitably circulate through communities, and the result will be clear: fewer people will report overdoses or seek medical help for fear of harsh criminal penalties. And while proponents of DIH laws argue that they offer protections for those reporting overdoses, the reality is that law enforcement and prosecutors can easily sidestep these protections. We've seen this play out in other states, where the subjective nature of who is culpable for an overdose makes DIH laws prone to misuse and overreach. Instead of returning to the failed approach of piling on more harsh penalties that don't solve the problem, Maryland should focus on evidence-based solutions that work. We know that there is not a new miracle drug treatment or incarceration law that has helped reduce overdose deaths. We know what has helped prevent overdoses and support recovery: widespread naloxone distribution, harm reduction and peer recovery services, medications for opioid use disorder like suboxone and methadone, and overdose prevention centers. These interventions have been shown to prevent fatal overdoses and appear to be working. The state has seen a sharp decline in overdoses in the past year and should stay the course with these evidence-based approaches. The overdose epidemic has already caused enough harm. Our response must focus on compassion, care and proven solutions — not longer prison sentences. Drug-induced homicide laws are a flawed, punitive response that will only make things worse. Maryland can lead the way by rejecting these laws and focusing on solutions that save lives.
