An issue that many say is the invisible elephant in the room this legislative session is being studied by the Utilities and Energy Committee, which is trying to determine which side, if any, it should endorse.
Discontent over the state’s involvement in the New England electrical power grid, which is managed by an organization called ISO-New England, prompted the Maine Public Utilities Commission last month to order a revision of Maine’s agreement. Under the order, Central Maine Power and Bangor Hydro-Electric are required to renegotiate their contracts with ISO-New England with the intent of increasing Maine’s influence in the organization and instituting measures that protect ratepayers’ interests.
However, the discontent has reached such a level that some – including one of the three members of MPUC – say Maine should withdraw from ISO-New England either totally or in part.
In addition to keeping homeowners’ bills down, the decision has the potential to affect the state’s pursuit of a more reliable grid and renewable energy sources, both of which require transmission system upgrades that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Those costs would be shared by all the New England states under the current agreement but conversely, Maine also pays 8 percent of the cost of other states’ projects.
“This is one of the most important issues facing the state at this time,” said Sen. Barry Hobbins, D-Saco, the Senate chairman of the Utilities and Energy Committee, after Thursday’s hearing. “We’re gathering information from all sides and all stakeholders.”
Rep. Jon Hinck, D-Portland, the committee’s House chairman, said there is discontent with ISO-New England across Maine.
“It’s our task to try and put these negotiators in the best possible posture for the benefit of the situation in Maine,” said Hinck.
The MPUC holds the authority over the agreement and the negotiations. The Legislature’s role in this case might be to pass a resolve for or against withdrawal, to institute legislation that might help the situation, to order studies, or possibly to just stay out of it, said Hobbins.
At issue Thursday for some members of the committee was whether Maine should be developing a plan to quit ISO-New England in the event that the reform talks break down or don’t produce adequate results. The MPUC expects a report on the negotiations by May 1 and has until Aug. 1 to indicate whether it intends to pull out or continue in the New England grid.
Rep. Kenneth Fletcher, R-Winslow, said he’d like a status update on the negotiations well before either of those dates.
“I would think that over the next month we could get an indication whether there will be a reform that’s acceptable to all of us,” he said. “I would think that before the Legislature adjourns, that we should know whether it’s a go or a no go.” Fletcher advocated for an update from CMP and Bangor Hydro in early March.
Rep. Stacey Fitts, R-Pittsfield, was among the committee’s members who said the state ought to be pursuing a withdrawal plan it can enact in the event negotiations with ISO-New England break down.
“I have a difficult time with how you can know what the alternative could be when you haven’t pursued it,” said Fitts to Sharon Reishus, chairwoman of the MPUC.
Reishus said she understood that sentiment, but is hopeful the negotiations will be successful. One reason for her hope is that all of the other states in the agreement with ISO-New England share Maine’s concerns about cost containment.
“The ISO is aware of our positions,” said Reishus. “They understand the pressure they’re under and they’re trying to respond. I am encouraged so far by the seriousness with which the ISO is responding to states’ concerns.”
Several people testified about whether to stay with ISO-New England. Eric Stinneford, a vice president at CMP, advocated continuing the negotiations and remaining part of ISO-New England.
“Maine electrical customers are best served by CMP’s and Bangor Hydro-Electric’s continued membership in the ISO,” said Stinneford. “It’s not productive to threaten to walk away. Any time we spend exploring an alternative is time not spent developing the reforms.”
Eric Bryant, a senior counsel for Maine’s Public Advocate office, which advocates on behalf of ratepayers, also supported remaining with ISO-New England and continuing with the reform negotiations.
“We also support seeking an alternative,” said Bryant, who stated that the MPUC should explore making a “hybrid” arrangement with the Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, which is ISO-New England’s counterpart in northern Maine. Under the hybrid, some services would be purchased from NMISA and others from ISO-New England.
“It’s an intriguing idea that hasn’t been explored,” Bryant said, though he added that his office is already overburdened and that task would be difficult.
Tony Buxton, a Preti Flaherty lobbyist for the Independent Energy Consumer Group, advocated for withdrawal and voiced a list of arguments why.
“We believe it’s in Maine’s interest to stand alone,” he said. “It is not credible to say that there are not the resources to (explore pulling out of ISO-New England). If we don’t have the money to do this, why do we have the money to do anything? We do not see a serious prospect for reform.”
Ken Belcher, executive director of NMISA, said his organization has no opinion on what the MPUC should do, as long as there’s no move to have NMISA join ISO-New England.
The Utilities and Energy Commission plans an in-depth work session to determine its next steps, but that hasn’t been scheduled yet.
(Statehouse News Service)